Apparently Americans (even gov officials) fail to understand how America works

[fjer]

US officials flunk test of American history, economics, civics (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081120/od_afp/ushistoryeducationoffbeat)

I'm sure many won't be surprised by these results, but it certainly sheds a new light on much that has happened recently (mainly the elections). Kind of makes you worry about our future doesn't it?

You can take the quiz here (http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx), btw. I got 87.88%, I got tripped up on a few economics questions (though one question I would argue had no truly correct answer).

[03_SHOOTER]

The results of their study merely serve to amplify the reasons why I requested that the Political Discussion Forum be added to Grunts. The current level of understanding what America is really all about, how our government is supposed to work (as opposed to how it does work), and even our own history is beyond abysmal.

On a side note, my score was 96.96% (I only missed one, and I believe it is due to the way the question was phrased).

[fjer]

Was it "33) If taxes equal government spending, then:" by any chance?

[03_SHOOTER]

Was it "33) If taxes equal government spending, then:" by any chance?

I don't recall, as to me it wasn't a "critical" question.

[TruBlu]

Not surprising to say the least after many discussions that have popped up in this forum. I wasn't pleased about my score per say, but it was higher than the averages that your source was pulling (mine was a dismal 69.70%).

Here's an interesting knowledge gap table from the test:
http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/2008/additional_finding.html

But, I do have to raise this question: Who or what capacity were those elected leaders? I saw another table on there showing demographics and such for those regular citizens who took the test. But not so much for the elected leaders.

Also, is it unfair that a larger number of people were tested as non-elected citizens than elected leaders? Or is it perfectly fair because of the non-elected:elected ratios? Just some questions for thought that I know I would like to see people's opinions on.

[fjer]

From the official press release, the people who were elected officials were just people from the random group they polled who happened to be elected officials.

[SlightlyCatholic]

What I find disturbing is that 89.2% of the testees (no pun intended) failed the test.

Part of the reason for the inadequate education about our own nation is (in my opinion) high schools focusing on world history rather than this nation as its own subject matter. Also, this is going to sound bad, but I think a lot of teachers feel that their students are just too dumb to understand the founding documents of the United States. Whether that's true or not, I don't know, but I think it's true in at least some places in America.

[Billyd]

Tim, I don't think it is so much the students are too "dumb "to understand but the Teachers themselves don't fully understand what it is they are supposed to be teaching. For example, here in Florida the institutes of Public Educashun spend more time teaching the FCAT then actually teaching something useful such as critical thinking skills

[SlightlyCatholic]

I agree with you. What I was questioning the "truth" of was not the students' being smart enough to digest the founding documents but rather the teachers' faith in the students. American youth can do it, but they need to be given the chance.

[TruBlu]

Part of the reason for the inadequate education about our own nation is (in my opinion) high schools focusing on world history rather than this nation as its own subject matter.

Well, as a current high school student (and yes, taking into account that you have been there done that), I can refute that with my own transcript. I have taken one World History class (req.) and one US History class (req.). Next year I will be taking US Government and Economics (req.).

Of course that's not always best. We should also be worldly in our knowledge, as it may help us better understand and improve on our own. For this I have signed up for other courses, including a European History and a War and Conflict class.

I don't think that it's a matter of course load and selection for courses though to be honest. I believe it is a failure upon the part of the students for not taking an interest and understanding what they claim. Should there be a class entirely devoted to the US Constitution and amendments required for each high school student? Maybe, but would that hold the interest of the students involved, and in the end teach them very much? No, and I say that because I am a student and see that attitude everyday when I go to school.

From what I know and have experienced, the youth, excluding a small handful, does not care about how it works, or why it's a certain way. No, to most youth, including those that can vote, it's all about image and basic ideas that sound good to them. That's my two cents.

[TruBlu]

Tim, I don't think it is so much the students are too "dumb "to understand but the Teachers themselves don't fully understand what it is they are supposed to be teaching. For example, here in Florida the institutes of Public Educashun spend more time teaching the FCAT then actually teaching something useful such as critical thinking skills

I agree that the students are not too dumb, but as a student, I can say that my peers, well most of them, are not taking interest in topics that they should have at least a basic understanding about.

When it comes to teachers, I would agree with that (although as a student that's slightly bias) in many cases. In many cases it's not so true, there are the strait talking, no BS, this is what you need to know, kind of teachers out there (I've got a few, and those are the ones with the higher degrees and better teaching methods), and then there aren't.

It's true, public education systems spend more time on preparing for standardized testing (useless knowledge in many regards) than on applicable skills and understandings. Is the public education system a failure? I don't think so, it's just a lot of students and even teachers, that simply don't care as much as they should.

[SlightlyCatholic]

Well, as a current high school student (and yes, taking into account that you have been there done that), I can refute that with my own transcript. I have taken one World History class (req.) and one US History class (req.). Next year I will be taking US Government and Economics (req.).

Either things have changed in the two years since my public school peers have been out of high school or my region uses a different playbook. It's probably a mixture of the two.

From what I know and have experienced, the youth, excluding a small handful, does not care about how it works, or why it's a certain way. No, to most youth, including those that can vote, it's all about image and basic ideas that sound good to them. That's my two cents.

They'll care if a class about the Constitution and the other pertinent documents were made a graduation requirement. Make a national exam and call it the BCAT- The Basic Citizenry Aptitude Test. Our youth should be leaving high school with a basic understanding of these documents whether they're interested or not.

[armysc_25b]

Tim, I don't think it is so much the students are too "dumb "to understand but the Teachers themselves don't fully understand what it is they are supposed to be teaching. For example, here in Florida the institutes of Public Educashun spend more time teaching the FCAT then actually teaching something useful such as critical thinking skills

I don't have to preach to the choir, being a graduate of the Florida Skool System. Way too much emphasis is placed on FCAT, which is a test of 10th grade abilities, and DOES NOT include a section concerning History, the Constitution, or anything of the nature.

I agree with you. What I was questioning the "truth" of was not the students' being smart enough to digest the founding documents but rather the teachers' faith in the students. American youth can do it, but they need to be given the chance.

Well, as a current high school student (and yes, taking into account that you have been there done that), I can refute that with my own transcript. I have taken one World History class (req.) and one US History class (req.). Next year I will be taking US Government and Economics (req.).

Just because the courses are required, and you take them, doesn't mean that the time and resources invested into those courses makes us knowledgeable in the subject matter. I know from my experiences, that more time was placed on history involving outside nations. In fact, of what little I do remember of the courses, most of the history books seemed to focus more on conflicts than anything else. I started the test, and I ended up closing the window after the first 10 or 15 questions, because of the poor education I have concerning the topics presented. No emphasis was placed on truly understanding the documents that we base the American way off of, and that is a lot of the problem we are now dealing with.

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

WASHINGTON (AFP) – US elected officials scored abysmally on a test measuring their civic knowledge, with an average grade of just 44 percent, the group that organized the exam said Thursday.

Now what I'm trying to figure out is how people elected those people into office. If someone doesn't even know how our Government works, do they deserve to be in office? In my opinion, they don't... if they lack the basic knowledge of how they even got into office, should they be helping run this country? (.002 cents, of course).

As for Standardized Tests -- I agree wholeheartedly with the notion that schools these days spend too much time teaching to the test (A simple exam of basic reading, writing, and math), but no such things like Geography, Civics, or US History. At my school, they even got rid of our Geography class (Which had a Civics unit) for the first semester so that students could work on "writing".

Now, I find it very sad when a High School Junior with absolutely no civics class at all scores higher than the elected officials of our government. Now, based on my score, there is much, very much more for me to learn, and, now that I have the answers to the questions I missed, I'm studying.

You answered 24 out of 33 correctly — 72.73 %

Average score for this quiz during November: 77.6%
Average score: 77.6%

You can take the quiz as often as you like, however, your score will only count once toward the monthly average.

[devin0116]

Tim, I don't think it is so much the students are too "dumb "to understand but the Teachers themselves don't fully understand what it is they are supposed to be teaching. For example, here in Florida the institutes of Public Educashun spend more time teaching the FCAT then actually teaching something useful such as critical thinking skills

No doubt, I know from experience. We do more "FCAT workbooks" than anything else. :D I probably did worse on this with a 66.?%. I have not studied our governement for 2-3 years and dont get economics and American gov. till senior year. However this is no excuse for not understanding the principles my country was founded on.

[armysc_25b]

No doubt, I know from experience. We do more "FCAT workbooks" than anything else. :D I probably did worse on this with a 66.?%. I have not studied our governement for 2-3 years and dont get economics and American gov. till senior year. However this is no excuse for not understanding the principles my country was founded on.
Answer something for me (not just directed at you devin, but anyone in FL basically), since I've been away from the state since graduating. Are there any intentions to add any kind of history sections to the FCAT, or do the nutcases that organize the FCAT deem that not important to know?

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

I gave the quiz to a friend of mine, who is a naturalized citizen originally from Venezuela.

He got a 78.79%...

On the subject on History and Standardized Tests -- Although I don't live in Florida, I know for a fact that here in Colorado, they will never add a History section to the CSAP, apparently, it's not important.

The only reason why we have Geography at my school (all students take it in the 7th Grade), is because they brought in an unmarked map to my school, and more than half of the kids couldn't find Iraq... and this is a military community.

[devin0116]

I don't think they have any intentions to add any history any time soon. I guess they don't want kids having a national identity. All I have taken and will ever take (since this is my last year of taking FCAT) is science,writing, reading comprehension, and math.

[flyBoy2010]

In Oklahoma, all Freshmen must take a semester of Oklahoma history and a semester of US Government. All students must take US and World History before they graduate and must pass an End of Instruction (EOI) exam for the US history class. Requirements like these, help give teenagers a better understanding of how this country was formed and how it works. History sections in tests like the ACT/SAT would also help tremendously.

A problem that has been talked about already, teachers, is one that I would like to expand on. The quality of a class and how well material is learned depends on how much the teacher knows, but also how they present the material. Some teachers hand out typed notes and say "This is what will be on your test." Students in classes like that, generally enjoy them better, but don't learn the subject that their in unless they take it upon themselves to read the material. The other, "better," kind of teacher says: "Read this section by x day. You will have a test over that section then." Students in those classes are much more likely to learn the material because they are being forced to learn it.

BTW: I scored a 77.7% on the test. I guess I need to brush up on my economics and history some.

[TruBlu]

They'll care if a class about the Constitution and the other pertinent documents were made a graduation requirement. Make a national exam and call it the BCAT- The Basic Citizenry Aptitude Test. Our youth should be leaving high school with a basic understanding of these documents whether they're interested or not.

US History and Economics only goes into the basics about everything. I think expanding both into two separate entities and requiring both as two different classes would definitely help. As of right now, both are only half credit courses to be taken in conjunction with one another (that's across the board if I'm not mistaken, not just my region).

We wouldn't even have to create new classes. Expanding ones that are there would give us room for twice as much information in both subject areas.


The quality of a class and how well material is learned depends on how much the teacher knows, but also how they present the material. Some teachers hand out typed notes and say "This is what will be on your test." Students in classes like that, generally enjoy them better, but don't learn the subject that their in unless they take it upon themselves to read the material. The other, "better," kind of teacher says: "Read this section by x day. You will have a test over that section then." Students in those classes are much more likely to learn the material because they are being forced to learn it.

Agreed. I hate being in classes and my peer students constantly ask: "Will this be on the test?" Every time I feel like saying, "No @#$#! We are learning something that won't be on a test?" I like it when teachers tell us what's going to be on a test specifically, duh everyone does. But at the same time, I don't take that for granted. I learn what I need to learn because then I'm just wasting my time and my teacher's time. If they don't say what's on the tests specifically, then I do the same thing I would if I did know. It makes no difference to me, and by the looks you either.

[devin0116]

At my school, Freshman year you take no history or related classes. Sophomore year you take World History. Junior Year is U.S. History. Finally Senior year is 9 weeks of U.S. Gov. and 9 weeks of economics.

[armysc_25b]

At my school, Freshman year you take no history or related classes. Sophomore year you take World History. Junior Year is U.S. History. Finally Senior year is 9 weeks of U.S. Gov. and 9 weeks of economics.

That's all of Florida's graduating curriculum. You're indoctrinated to the required skills necessary to pass the Grade 10 FCAT (the one required for graduation from Florida schools) from the beginning, and our educators have obviously decided that the need for history is not there. Florida schools require 8 elective credits for graduation, while comparatively speaking you get a total of 3 credits in the history courses. Maybe it's just me, but someone could decide to take one of those elective credits and apply it to a mandatory 9th grade course in this area.

EDIT TO ADD:
Source 1 - http://www.fldoe.org/APlusPlus/pdf/MAJORSGuideHSGraduation2007.pdf - Florida High School Graduation Requirements, page 5 will show the credit breakdown.

Source 2 - http://www.sarasota.k12.fl.us/nphs/guidance/documents/Pathways07-08.pdf - Sarasota County, FL (my home county) graduation requirements, pages 5 thru 7 will show the credit breakdown for each year due to changes made across the board. Furthermore, the district has implimented a "Major Area of Interest" where students are required to have 4 credits in an area they would like to persue as their career after their completion of indoctrination training, I mean high school (i.e. a pre-college major program is what it sounds like to me, but I graduated before it was implimented so I only know what's published).

[TheLegalShark]

I scored a 90.91%. I missed questions 7, 29, and 33.

The problem with the NJ HSPA exam is that it only covers limited portions of the high school curriculum. (Math, Science, and Writing/Reading). The only real problems anybody had were with the math section. This was largely because the test had been changed to include trigonometry and calculus questions. (Out of the 650+ people I graduated with, maybe 1/6 reached calculus by the time they graduated while about 1/4 got to trigonometry/pre-calculus. This was because of available seats for those classes and that most people never reached the level to be admitted to them).

Mostly I think these tests are a disservice because they do focus on things that most people will never look at again after high school while completely ignoring things that you need in everyday life. But then again I have long thought that the purpose of high school was to churn out people qualified to make $6/hour stocking shelves.

A scarier thought is that it is possible to go through high school and college without ever having taken a course on American government or the constitution. It's not a pretty sight to see a fellow law student that does not understand the idea of a bifurcated legislature.

[SlightlyCatholic]

A scarier thought is that it is possible to go through high school and college without ever having taken a course on American government or the constitution. It's not a pretty sight to see a fellow law student that does not understand the idea of a bifurcated legislature.

This seems odd...don't most law students hold a B.A. in Political Science? Or is that just a myth?

[TruBlu]

At my school, Freshman year you take no history or related classes. Sophomore year you take World History. Junior Year is U.S. History. Finally Senior year is 9 weeks of U.S. Gov. and 9 weeks of economics.

Pretty standard across the board. That's whats required to graduate when it comes to history.

[TheLegalShark]

This seems odd...don't most law students hold a B.A. in Political Science? Or is that just a myth?

I can't speak for all law students, but at my school quite a few do not have a Political Science degree. You pretty much see all sorts of degrees from a B.A. in Philosophy to a B.S. in Electrical Engineering. B.A.s in English Literature are also very common here. However, I do hold a B.A. in Political Science.

[03_SHOOTER]

Should there be a class entirely devoted to the US Constitution and amendments required for each high school student? Maybe, but would that hold the interest of the students involved, and in the end teach them very much? No, and I say that because I am a student and see that attitude everyday when I go to school.

And therein lies the very crux of the problem. Before I was allowed to graduate, and issued my Diploma, we were required to pass an essay type Civics Exam (no multiple choice) on the Constitution and all of the Amendments, as well as other Civics related subjects, and failure to pass that test would have resulted in not graduating, PERIOD. If you did badly, you were given one opportunity to retest, or you would have to go to summer school and pass it then, or you simply did not graduate. Was it harsh? Yes, but life is harsh, and if you're not properly prepared for life outside of school, you will not succeed in the "real world".

The reason that young people don't remember it is because there's no motivation to remember it. If you were to have to pass a closed book, essay type test on the subject in order to graduate, I can guarantee you that you would not only study it, you would remember it for the rest of your lives!

[03_SHOOTER]

Now what I'm trying to figure out is how people elected those people into office.

That's a simple one Buffa1o, they were elected by people who are entirely too stupid to realize how stupid they really are, because they were promised that they would give them something for nothing out of the public treasury, which is exactly why we have Obama as our soon-to-be CiC.

They were promised "change" without "change" ever being defined, and they took the bait...hook, line, and sinker. They were promised "universal health care" without concerning themselves as to how it was going to be paid for, and they took the bait...hook, line, and sinker. They were promised all kinds of extremely ambiguous things, with no explanation of exactly what these things were, how these things were going to be implemented or paid for, and they bought it...hook, line, and sinker.

[fjer]

In my opinion a big part of the problem with the educational system is that there is so much of a focus on as many people graduating as possible that the goal becomes passing instead of educating. The standard is lowered to the worst student instead of students being pushed to the standard.

[armysc_25b]

Quantity vs. Quality, that's what a lot of things are turning into these days (the education system, the need for NCO's it seems, "straight" salesmen, the list goes on).

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

That's a simple one Buffa1o, they were elected by people who are entirely too stupid to realize how stupid they really are, because they were promised that they would give them something for nothing out of the public treasury, which is exactly why we have Obama as our soon-to-be CiC.

They were promised "change" without "change" ever being defined, and they took the bait...hook, line, and sinker. They were promised "universal health care" without concerning themselves as to how it was going to be paid for, and they took the bait...hook, line, and sinker. They were promised all kinds of extremely ambiguous things, with no explanation of exactly what these things were, how these things were going to be implemented or paid for, and they bought it...hook, line, and sinker.

This practically backs up everything I've thought about the whole realm of politicians and people. You tell people what they want to hear, you're in.

And... a very wise man said that: "Democracy can only last until people vote themselves the gifts of the treasury." -- Don't remember the full quote, but the gist is still there.

[TruBlu]

And therein lies the very crux of the problem. Before I was allowed to graduate, and issued my Diploma, we were required to pass an essay type Civics Exam (no multiple choice) on the Constitution and all of the Amendments, as well as other Civics related subjects, and failure to pass that test would have resulted in not graduating, PERIOD. If you did badly, you were given one opportunity to retest, or you would have to go to summer school and pass it then, or you simply did not graduate. Was it harsh? Yes, but life is harsh, and if you're not properly prepared for life outside of school, you will not succeed in the "real world".

The reason that young people don't remember it is because there's no motivation to remember it. If you were to have to pass a closed book, essay type test on the subject in order to graduate, I can guarantee you that you would not only study it, you would remember it for the rest of your lives!

And the lack of motivation is not only the students. The school system itself does not want to implement new standards for students. I am in South Carolina, one of the lowest ranking states in education when compared side to side with all other 49. An example of just allowing students to get the hell out of a class, not necessarily do well, is a program that my school district implemented:

-A student selects one book to read over the summer out of about five.
-Student reads book, or briefly looks over it.
-Student returns to school the next semester and is given a small extra credit project for the book. This project is usually a small essay about the book or drawing illustrating a scene.
-Student gets 4 points added on to a class's semester grade. Make a 66 average in US History, get to go and take the class again. Oh, but wait, you drew a picture and thus receive 4 points on your final average!!!
-Student passes class and doesn't know the material, but the school and state now look better because more students are "passing."

Is that not ridiculous?

I think there should be a civics examination. Hell, we could standardize it and then maybe it will be looked at more. Hey, here's an idea: Lets "standardize" all tests and have a uniform education system? No? You're right too much work...

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't really enjoy living and "learning" in a state where I won't get the same education as another state.

[devin0116]

-A student selects one book to read over the summer out of about five.
-Student reads book, or briefly looks over it.
-Student returns to school the next semester and is given a small extra credit project for the book. This project is usually a small essay about the book or drawing illustrating a scene.
-Student gets 4 points added on to a class's semester grade. Make a 66 average in US History, get to go and take the class again. Oh, but wait, you drew a picture and thus receive 4 points on your final average!!!
-Student passes class and doesn't know the material, but the school and state now look better because more students are "passing."

Thats crazy. We have a summer reading program but it goes like:

-We (school board or other officials) choose book for you.
-You read book, or don't.
-write report or copy of other students.
-turn in report at start of english semester or receive 0%.

The one I had to read over last summer was 1984 by George Orwell
(most of you seem to know him.)

[TruBlu]

ALL English classes require at least one book to be read over the summer. What I'm getting at is a weak attempt to "boost" a school system, and members there of, that is slowly, but surely, failing. :sick: That's the my reaction.

[devin0116]

Indeed. I was agreeing with you and giving an example of what we do here. Showing the differences between your free 'graduate Highschool card' and our 'discounted graduate english class card' so to speak.

[RedBeard]

You answered 30 out of 33 correctly — 90.91 %
Your Missed Questions: Question #7, 27, & 30

I am a little disappointed that I missed so many. I second guessed myself on 7, got 27 outright wrong, and thought it would be smart to tax less AND spend less (but what the hell do I know!).

[Lkg]

You answered 28 out of 33 correctly — 84.85 %

In my state all high school students are required to pass a US "History" exam to graduate. The exit exam compared with the Civic Literacy test is like night and day. Our exit exam was more concerned with basic US history and knowledge on the constitution. (Ex. How many terms can a president be elected to?) I would venture to guess that majority of students answered the question correctly. However I doubt that half could tell you WHY? It's easy to spout off dates of important events or battles, but it is a completely different concept to know why or how they happened.

A problem with the exit exam is due to teachers "teaching" a test rather than the subject. It does not help when teachers are constantly pressured to improve test scores by administrators trying to boast high test scores or averages

Its ironic how a large part of education comes down to "politics".

[Murray B]

Well, I received a score of 84.85% but it was a snap quiz and I did not study for it. I'm pretty sure that the Puritans drank beer for breakfast (no water or fruit juice on the Mayflower) so that answer may not be reliable.

Government officials may well understand what the U.S. constitution means but they choose to ignore it. Remember forced metrication? Is there any doubt that they all knew that the vast majority of the people were against it? So why did it happen?

It is not a simple problem when they knowingly choose to disobey the constitution. Especially now that "legal justice" has been invented. Wrong can become right by changing definitions. Wasn't Nixon advised that the constitution gave him the same powers as King Louis of France?

If they do not know right from wrong I doubt it would help much if they all scored 100% in civics.

[Armed Drill Addict]

You answered 28 out of 33 correctly — 84.85 %

Average score for this quiz during December: 75.0%
Average score: 75.0%

You can take the quiz as often as you like, however, your score will only count once toward the monthly average.

I don't feel too bad about it, but I could have done better I know why I missed what I missed.

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

So, not to beat a dead horse (but it does have to deal with citizenship tests)...

I just took the immigration and naturalization test (all 100 questions) and missed twelve. I don't know how I forgot New Jersey, I don't know how I mixed up 1787 and 1788, and I most definately do not know how I missed the "name one benefit of being a citizen of the United States" question, but I did.

I think the immigration/naturalization test should be the test to vote, IMO.

[TruBlu]

I think the immigration/naturalization test should be the test to vote, IMO.

No the immigration/naturalization test should be the test for immigrants and those seeking citizenship, not the test to vote. Both may share similar elements, maybe even exactly the same ones in some areas, but the voting test idea is based on individual states, and certain elements will vary between such.

[03_SHOOTER]

No the immigration/naturalization test should be the test for immigrants and those seeking citizenship, not the test to vote. Both may share similar elements, maybe even exactly the same ones in some areas, but the voting test idea is based on individual states, and certain elements will vary between such.

OK, now I'm a bit confused. We were discussing this very thing in THIS (http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/board/showthread.php?t=1020) thread, and you didn't seem to have a problem with it there, so why the 180 degree turn around?

The citizenship test I posted is the basis of American Civics, and as such, IMNSHO, should be the basic test for being allowed to vote, and then have additional state specific questions on top.

[TruBlu]

OK, now I'm a bit confused. We were discussing this very thing in THIS (http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/board/showthread.php?t=1020) thread, and you didn't seem to have a problem with it there, so why the 180 degree turn around?

The citizenship test I posted is the basis of American Civics, and as such, IMNSHO, should be the basic test for being allowed to vote, and then have additional state specific questions on top.

I think you mis-read or misinterpreted my posting, or maybe I could have done a better job in it's wording. Either way, I wasn't denouncing the voting test, I was denouncing the idea of the citizenship test being the voting test. I think they should be separate and the subject matter of both vary. I support the citizenship testing and the idea of voter testing.

[03_SHOOTER]

I think you mis-read or misinterpreted my posting, or maybe I could have done a better job in it's wording. Either way, I wasn't denouncing the voting test, I was denouncing the idea of the citizenship test being the voting test. I think they should be separate and the subject matter of both vary. I support the citizenship testing and the idea of voter testing.

Perhaps my esteemed colleague from the great State of South Carolina would care to expound a bit on why he doesn't think the citizenship would serve as an adequate starting point for establishing a persons privilege to vote? The simple fact that most people apparently cannot even pass the citizenship test with a 95% or better score, and yet are allowed to vote gives me reason to believe that it would be a fine place to start.

[TruBlu]

Perhaps my esteemed colleague from the great State of South Carolina would care to expound a bit on why he doesn't think the citizenship would serve as an adequate starting point for establishing a persons privilege to vote? The simple fact that most people apparently cannot even pass the citizenship test with a 95% or better score, and yet are allowed to vote gives me reason to believe that it would be a fine place to start.

Solely on the basis that the citizenship test does not incorporate individual state information (ie: your state's governor/representatives/senators). For me, state level governing is most important because when I hear United States I think of a group of states that govern themselves with an oversight that comes with unity, but that is another argument for another thread at another time.

[03_SHOOTER]

Solely on the basis that the citizenship test does not incorporate individual state information (ie: your state's governor/representatives/senators). For me, state level governing is most important because when I hear United States I think of a group of states that govern themselves with an oversight that comes with unity, but that is another argument for another thread at another time.

It would appear that my esteemed colleague and I are actually in general accord. My position is that the citizenship test should be required in all States as a basis for establishing the basic privilege of voting, and that in addition each individual State would then supplement the test with their own additional questions as they relate to that State.

To be honest, I would be impressed to discover if 3 out of 10 Americans even know who their State Governor is, who their State Senator and Representative are, who their County Commissioner is, their County Representative, their Mayor, City Councilman, or any of the other myriad of individuals they voted for in this past election, and that's not even counting the Judges!

[Javelin66]

Depending on how you interpret these scores (accepting the average score on this test would be the average score of the typical American, and further accepting that this test would be the basic model of a 'poll test'), then you could argue that the majority of Americans would not be qualified to vote if the states adopted a similar test.

Accepting this for the sake of argument, doesn't this by definition create a class of elites that determine the outcome of elections and therefore control the composition of government?

[HairyEyeball]

There will always be an 'elite'. It could be the most brutal, or the best armed - or it could be the 'enlightened'. As long as that 'elite' isn't a 'closed society', and entrance is available to any who choose to educate themselves, if the 'equality' is that - as intended - of opportunity, rather than as currently mandated, of outcome, such an 'elite' can be an advantage...or, we can all retreat to Galt Gulch, while we still can.

[03_SHOOTER]

Depending on how you interpret these scores (accepting the average score on this test would be the average score of the typical American, and further accepting that this test would be the basic model of a 'poll test'), then you could argue that the majority of Americans would not be qualified to vote if the states adopted a similar test.

Accepting this for the sake of argument, doesn't this by definition create a class of elites that determine the outcome of elections and therefore control the composition of government?

And to further expound on what my esteemed colleague from the great State of Arizona has said, as the appropriate test material will be readily available to all those taking the test, free of charge (just as the Drivers License booklet is made available to all taking that test), the 'elite' among us would constitute those who actually bothered to read and comprehend the material provided to them by their State prior to taking the test.

Frankly, if your argument that "the majority of Americans would not be qualified" based on the results of that simple test, after having been provided the appropriate test material, then they obviously only possess the mental acuity of a 9 year old, and 9 year olds aren't permitted to vote as it is.

[Javelin66]

How do you reconcile the idea of a qualification test with the preamble of the Constitution? It begins with ‘We the people’, not “We the educated representatives of the people”.

As Joseph Story writes in his Commentaries ( http://www.constitution.org/js/js_306.htm), the preamble, while not creating specific powers, is a ‘key to the open mind of the makers’, and ‘We have the strongest assurances, that this preamble was not adopted as a mere formulary; but as a solemn promulgation of a fundamental fact, vital to the character and operations of the government.’

The ‘voting elite’ as defined so far in this thread would be dangerously close to being a closed society. To be considered truly open, all Americans would have to have access to the same educational opportunities, which they do not. The test that inspired this thread indicates that the basic education available to all is insufficient.

This is not limited to a lack of civics education, by the way. Consider that while the literacy rate is somewhere around 99%, an alarming percentage of high school grads (38%) are considered by their employers deficient in reading comprehension (http://www.nea.gov/news/news07/TRNR.html),which is a direct reflection on the quality of education available. In other words, at least 38% of Americans would have trouble understanding material made available to them and would be incapable of educating themselves.

Further, assuming for a moment (but not ceding the point) that the ‘voting elite’ is not a closed society, how would you ensure that it does not become one over time? Shooter is already implying that in reality the true purpose of the test is to assess the ‘mental acuity’ of prospective voters. How are we the people to ensure that the elite does not incrementally increase the minimum score, change it to an IQ test, or even add questions about ‘privileged’ information to which only the elites have access?


There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.” -Ayn Rand

[wukong]

After perusing the test, I wonder why the right answer to every question could not be "who cares." There were no critical questions such as, What is a corn row? Why cannot we live a productive life even if we do not know the Capitol of Vermont, the President of the Senate or the name of George Washington's horse? As a matter of fact, he who controls the test controls the citizenry. We grew out of a problem with taxation without representation. Everyone has a stake in payroll taxation. Right or wrong, everyone has a right to influence the SS system.

[TheLegalShark]

There will always be an 'elite'. It could be the most brutal, or the best armed - or it could be the 'enlightened'. As long as that 'elite' isn't a 'closed society', and entrance is available to any who choose to educate themselves, if the 'equality' is that - as intended - of opportunity, rather than as currently mandated, of outcome, such an 'elite' can be an advantage...or, we can all retreat to Galt Gulch, while we still can.

I would agree with this. In any society there needs to be people that are elite, just like there needs to be people that are dumb an uneducated. In my opinion, the elite should be the best that this nation has to offer. They should be the most educated, most intelligent, and most skilled members of a society. Notice that I didn't include "best armed", "most brutal", or "most wealthy". The first two really don't show qualities of having the best education, intellect, or skills around. Not to offend anyone, but the dumbest redneck or gangbanger may be the "best armed" in an area or even the "most brutal". Neither of these precludes the traits I think make someone elite, but they do not possess them on their own. Now the wealthy are a whole different breed. Just like the other two traits I mentioned, being wealthy doesn't preclude the traits, but it doesn't guarantee them either. You can have a lot of money because of the work your parents did and do nothing at all because of it.

[03_SHOOTER]

How do you reconcile the idea of a qualification test with the preamble of the Constitution? It begins with ‘We the people’, not “We the educated representatives of the people”.

Primarily by the fact that there is no Constitutional "Right" to vote in any Federal election, as has been discussed at length previously.

The ‘voting elite’ as defined so far in this thread would be dangerously close to being a closed society. To be considered truly open, all Americans would have to have access to the same educational opportunities, which they do not. The test that inspired this thread indicates that the basic education available to all is insufficient.

I see that my esteemed colleague from the great State of Virginia is woefully unaware that in his very own State, for nearly 100 years after the Constitution was adopted, the only people who were allowed to participate in federal elections were White, land-owning, Protestant, EDUCATED males. As for the strawman argument of "open/closed" society, the United States is an open society, yet the privilege of voting is still restricted, to one extent or another, to many people in each of the States, but that does not make us a "closed society"

This is not limited to a lack of civics education, by the way. Consider that while the literacy rate is somewhere around 99%, an alarming percentage of high school grads (38%) are considered by their employers deficient in reading comprehension (http://www.nea.gov/news/news07/TRNR.html),which is a direct reflection on the quality of education available. In other words, at least 38% of Americans would have trouble understanding material made available to them and would be incapable of educating themselves.

And you see having them being prohibited from participating in the electoral process of our nation as a problem how?

Further, assuming for a moment (but not ceding the point) that the ‘voting elite’ is not a closed society, how would you ensure that it does not become one over time? Shooter is already implying that in reality the true purpose of the test is to assess the ‘mental acuity’ of prospective voters. How are we the people to ensure that the elite does not incrementally increase the minimum score, change it to an IQ test, or even add questions about ‘privileged’ information to which only the elites have access?

As a study guide for the test is to be made available to all, that would negate any concerns about increasing the difficulty of the test. It's rather hard to fail a test when you've been given all of the answers beforehand, unless you're simply too lazy to study the aforementioned material.

[Rabbit]

an alarming percentage of high school grads (38%) are considered by their employers deficient in reading comprehension (http://www.nea.gov/news/news07/TRNR.html),which is a direct reflection on the quality of education available. In other words, at least 38% of Americans would have trouble understanding material made available to them and would be incapable of educating themselves. I for one, remember high school. And I also remember a fair percentage of my class as lazy. The kinds of kids that slept through class, skipped, or what have you. For students like that, I could not blame educational value as a cause for someones reading deficiency. Granted, they probably shouldn't have graduated just by getting that D- and "squeaking by". But, that was their own fault not to learn the material offered and to "just do enough" work to pass the class.

My outlook on the matter in no way reflects every school in the nation, but I bet there are more lazy kids than bad teachers in the States.

[Javelin66]

By way of clarification, I am not from the commonwealth, I simply reside here.

No one is debating the question of an explicit right to vote in a federal election under the US Constitution. However, the language of the Constitution, beginning with the preamble, clearly envisions that the people are given a voice in their governance through a process of open elections. What it leaves to the states is the method for allowing that participation.

As you point out, for far too long the Commonwealth of Virginia and other states unjustly prevented several groups from voting, and this very fact should serve as a warning in this debate. I am not sure where you are going with this. Are you saying that allowing ethnic minorities, Catholics (or non-Christians), women, and those without certain educational credentials to vote was a mistake? Should we also reinstate slavery?

The question of a closed society as it pertains to this debate is whether or not we are unconstitutionally excluding people either explicitly (based on race, color, creed, or some other ‘birthright’), or implicitly based on language skills or something like this proposed test that only a certain group could pass. The proposed test is exclusive by its very nature.

The lack of knowledge cannot always be attributed to laziness, and the inability to learn cannot always be attributed to a lack of intelligence. A study guide may not be of use to the product of a public school system that was never really taught to read in the first place.

The question of the existence of elites is moot. Whether or not society needs elites, it certainly has them. Regardless of how they achieve this status (via education, wealth, birth, power, etc), the question here is the role of those elites vice that of the general populace: Should they have the sole voice in governance? On this question, the Constitution is clear in its opening words: ‘We the people’.

[03_SHOOTER]

By way of clarification, I am not from the commonwealth, I simply reside here.

Then perhaps you would be kind enough to permit us to know your home of record so that we may properly address you?

No one is debating the question of an explicit right to vote in a federal election under the US Constitution. However, the language of the Constitution, beginning with the preamble, clearly envisions that the people are given a voice in their governance through a process of open elections. What it leaves to the states is the method for allowing that participation.

As you point out, for far too long the Commonwealth of Virginia and other states unjustly prevented several groups from voting, and this very fact should serve as a warning in this debate. I am not sure where you are going with this. Are you saying that allowing ethnic minorities, Catholics (or non-Christians), women, and those without certain educational credentials to vote was a mistake? Should we also reinstate slavery?

I fear that you have a somewhat...non-factual interpretation of the intentions of the Founding Fathers as it relates to the privilege of voting. Regardless of your rather liberal interpretation of the specific verbiage utilized in the Constitution, there is nothing "unjust" about preventing certain people from participating in the electoral process, especially if those specific people are either too lazy, too uneducated, or frankly just too damned stupid to be trusted with that privilege. As I stated earlier, the States require all of us to pass a test prior to being granted the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on the "Post Roads", when the worst case scenario is the possible danger to a mere handful of people, so why should there be any less of a requirement when the lives of over 300 million Americans, and the fate of our entire nation is in the balance when we go to the polling place and cast our ballots.

The question of a closed society as it pertains to this debate is whether or not we are unconstitutionally excluding people either explicitly (based on race, color, creed, or some other ‘birthright’), or implicitly based on language skills or something like this proposed test that only a certain group could pass. The proposed test is exclusive by its very nature.

Your continual usage of the phrase "closed society" makes me wonder if you are aware of it's true meaning, or if you're simply parroting a phrase that some brain-dead liberal teacher threw out at you in class one day. A "closed society" is one in which non-elected rulers merely allow certain freedoms, which therefore makes it totally nonsensical as it relates to this topic as we are specifically discussing the election of our representatives. You also continually posit the blatant canard about certain groups being excluded when the passage or failure to pass the test is strictly dependent upon the individual taking the test, unless that is you can somehow demonstrate how passage of the exact same test that everyone wishing to become a United States citizen must pass, regardless of their race, creed, color, sex, or national origin being used to demonstrate their intellectual ability to participate in our electoral process is somehow "prejudicial". Or are you saying that someone from Guyana, who has only been here for 5 years, and who has barely mastered reading and writing our language is intellectually superior to a natural born American citizen?

The lack of knowledge cannot always be attributed to laziness, and the inability to learn cannot always be attributed to a lack of intelligence. A study guide may not be of use to the product of a public school system that was never really taught to read in the first place.

Actually, if an individual is so intellectually challenged as to be incapable of reading or learning, in many cases they are already precluded from voting, or operating a motor vehicle, or many other things that the vast majority of us take for granted, which renders this point moot as well.

The question of the existence of elites is moot. Whether or not society needs elites, it certainly has them. Regardless of how they achieve this status (via education, wealth, birth, power, etc), the question here is the role of those elites vice that of the general populace: Should they have the sole voice in governance? On this question, the Constitution is clear in its opening words: ‘We the people’.

Frankly I find your persistent concern with "class envy" to be somewhat disturbing, and quite telling of a rather liberal education, probably at the hands of closet, if not blatant, Communists.

[Javelin66]

Shooter, the tag says ‘location’, not home of record. I am from Texas. I am located in Virginia.

Which facts are in question here? I didn’t interpret; I quoted. We are discussing the use of a test as a prerequisite for a vote, not the existence of a right to vote in the US Constitution. Those rights are outlined in our various state constitutions.

I noticed that you are narrowing the field of voters to exclude the lazy, stupid, and uneducated. What standards do you envision in each of these areas?

I didn’t introduce the term ‘closed society’ to this discussion, HE did. Regardless, I see that you have visited Wikipedia again. I wish you had read the entire article or perhaps some of the primary sources (like I had to when I took that class with the brain dead liberal teacher. It was the same semester I took Being Offended 101). Either way, you would have learned that the totalitarian government in a closed society may have gained and maintained power in a variety of ways, to include rigged or sham elections (for example, through the use of tests that disenfranchise an undesirable segment of the population).

I give up on this passage:

You also continually posit the blatant canard about certain groups being excluded when the passage or failure to pass the test is strictly dependent upon the individual taking the test, unless that is you can somehow demonstrate how passage of the exact same test that everyone wishing to become a United States citizen must pass, regardless of their race, creed, color, sex, or national origin being used to demonstrate their intellectual ability to participate in our electoral process is somehow "prejudicial". Or are you saying that someone from Guyana, who has only been here for 5 years, and who has barely mastered reading and writing our language is intellectually superior to a natural born American citizen?



If the guy from Guyana can understand that paragraph he certainly has my admiration (if not the right to vote under your proposed system).

The very nature of the proposed test is to exclude; it was designed to prevent certain groups from voting. They just happen to be the people you deem ‘too stupid, lazy, or uneducated’ to vote.

[03_SHOOTER]

Shooter, the tag says ‘location’, not home of record. I am from Texas. I am located in Virginia.

Thank you, from this point forward I will strive to remember to refer to you as "my colleague from the great State of Texas".

Which facts are in question here? I didn’t interpret; I quoted. We are discussing the use of a test as a prerequisite for a vote, not the existence of a right to vote in the US Constitution. Those rights are outlined in our various state constitutions.

Your interpretation of the Founding Fathers as to suffrage is where your interpretation of the phrase "We the People" falls short. The historical record is rather concise and complete of the FF's understanding that "universal suffrage" is as repugnant to our form of government as "democracy" is. The privilege of voting is not now, nor was it ever envisioned to be a "birth right", it is a privilege that comes with great responsibility, and as such is not to be wielded like a club by every mentally deficient individual who is capable of nothing more complicated than converting oxygen into carbon dioxide who expects the government to pay for their "bread and circuses", or take care of them from the cradle to the grave.

I noticed that you are narrowing the field of voters to exclude the lazy, stupid, and uneducated. What standards do you envision in each of these areas?

The only standard that I have posited is the requirement that ALL citizens who wish to avail themselves of the privilege of voting should first demonstrate their capability to pass, with a minimum of 95%, the standard Citizenship Test that anyone wishing to become a citizen of the United States is required to pass. I also believe that each State should also include specific "State specific" questions.

I didn’t introduce the term ‘closed society’ to this discussion, HE did. Regardless, I see that you have visited Wikipedia again. I wish you had read the entire article or perhaps some of the primary sources (like I had to when I took that class with the brain dead liberal teacher. It was the same semester I took Being Offended 101). Either way, you would have learned that the totalitarian government in a closed society may have gained and maintained power in a variety of ways, to include rigged or sham elections (for example, through the use of tests that disenfranchise an undesirable segment of the population).

Actually the definition of a "closed society" I used comes from my decades old High School civics classes, which unfortunately is something that apparently isn't taught any longer. Also, I am quite aware of who introduced the phrase into the discussion, yet you are the one who keeps trying to flog us with it, regardless of the fact that by it's very definition it plays no part in the discussion as we are in fact discussing the process of electing our representatives, and their not being "appointed", and nobody but you is even implying any "rigged" or "sham" elections, or disenfranchising anyone but those who are too frickin lazy or stupid to know who Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi are, or who don't even know which political party held a majority in Congress like the ones so clearly demonstrated by Sean Hannity following the recent election.
JfpQfOENzjs
Frankly, those obliviot Obamabots shouldn't be permitted anywhere near a polling place again until they can demonstrate at least a minimum of knowledge of their own government!

I give up on this passage:
You also continually posit the blatant canard about certain groups being excluded when the passage or failure to pass the test is strictly dependent upon the individual taking the test, unless that is you can somehow demonstrate how passage of the exact same test that everyone wishing to become a United States citizen must pass, regardless of their race, creed, color, sex, or national origin being used to demonstrate their intellectual ability to participate in our electoral process is somehow "prejudicial". Or are you saying that someone from Guyana, who has only been here for 5 years, and who has barely mastered reading and writing our language is intellectually superior to a natural born American citizen?
Should I use even smaller words than I already did, or do I need to draw you a picture?

If the guy from Guyana can understand that paragraph he certainly has my admiration (if not the right to vote under your proposed system).

As easy as it would be, I'm not going to avail myself of the opportunity.

The very nature of the proposed test is to exclude; it was designed to prevent certain groups from voting. They just happen to be the people you deem ‘too stupid, lazy, or uneducated’ to vote.

Is it your contention that requiring people to demonstrate a working knowledge of the "rules of the road" prior to being permitted to drive is some sort of a conspiracy designed to "prevent certain groups from" driving? Are these the ones that the State has deemed "too stupid, lazy, or uneducated" to drive? PLEASE! It obviously never occurred to you that the purpose of the test is not to exclude anyone, but to raise the awareness of the American voting public! It's basic human nature that people aren't going to do anything they don't have to do, and if they don't have to know anything to be permitted to vote, most of the won't. If on the other hand they ARE compelled to acquire certain specific knowledge in order to be permitted to vote, and if they wish to vote, they will acquire that required knowledge.

[HairyEyeball]

Easy, gentlemen - if there is a misunderstanding of intent, perhaps we might all benefit from that intent being rephrased, rather than presuming a personal attack - and replying in kind. This is a subject we all have strong opinions on - and being responsible adults, we form those opinions on fact, not feeling, and can explain and defend them logically and rationally.

The point has been made that the intent is not to deprive the greatest number of the responsibility of electing our government, but to provide the initiative to anyone with the capability of making informed decisions in that enterprise to participate. Given the 'quality' of too many of our 'elected representatives' for too long, due to a number of factors including but not limited to those mentioned, the question we should be treating is 'how?'. One suggestion has been put forth and discussed. Rather than divining any supposed latent 'prejudice' in that, would we not be better served by refining it, or proposing viable alternatives?

If our goal is the Constitutional Republic envisioned by its founders, wouldn't the application of the principles on which it was founded - including a logical, rational, informed, moral government, elected by a logical, rational, informed, moral electorate, be a reasonable starting point?

Given that 'morality' is culturally based, and many otherwise 'qualified' individuals may have a cultural 'ethos' at odds with the Judeo-Chrisitian ethic on which the nation was founded, it might be satisfying to exclude them on that count, but it would contradict our morality. That leaves 'logical and rational', and 'informed'. Insofar as even the certifiably insane can be 'rational', and the rules of logic can be used to rationalize even the absurd, we're left with 'informed'. The basic citizenship test coupled with State-specific questions appears a reasonable starting point - although the question of 'passing' score is still open to debate. I would also include questions on the issues specific to a given election, and to the positions of each candidate.

The Board of Elections sends out Voter Registration Cards annually - it would take little effort to add a notation as to whether the voter had qualified for this specific election: Pass, and you vote, fail and study harder, and try again - as often as necessary until a set deadline, or for a set maximum number of times. Such notation could also be printed on poll lists, ensuring that no 'unqualified' individuals, registered or not, participate. 'Conditional' ballots would still be available for those whose poll list notation disagrees with their current card, and as with all questionable ballots, compared to the records of the County Registrar. Exceptions might be made for those hospitalized or in long-term care or deployed military personnel, whose last card would be valid until their situation changes, but any 'unqualified' individuals would have the option - should their situation permit - to retest.

Finally, the intent is not to be 'fair' - that implies the same fallacy as insisting 'equality' as used in the Declaration of Independence: "...all men are created equal" means an enforced 'equality' of outcome, as opposed to the intended 'equality of opportunity'. The intent is to insure that the government is placed in the hands of those who understand and abide by its 'owners manual' - the Constitution - by an electorate who also understands the principles of that Constitution, and will hold their hired help to it.