It's definitely not reasonable. You shouldn't lose your right to vote because you don't know which office of government pays USPS mail carriers or the term length of US judges. There are lots of likely-disqualifiers mixed in with the gimmes like "Who is the first president?".
Even "who is the first president" knowledge shouldn't be a bar to voting. Do you think they offered this literacy test in the native languages of all taking it? Do you think all people in the US had the opportunity to learn, in their language, the history of the country?
At the time there were systemic barriers to education that meant that many folk were probably not even taught who the first president was. Let alone how old you have to be to be president.
> You shouldn't lose your right to vote because you don't know which office of government pays USPS mail carriers or the term length of US judges.
That isn't actually all that clear cut. I'd agree that it is probably a bad idea, but there is potential that the results would be better if voters understood the system that they were delivering instructions into.
I think voter registration itself should be disallowed and banned. Why should voters need to register beforehand? You should be able to just show up on election day and cast a vote. The entire process of voter registration is nothing more than a means to disenfranchise voters.
I like the abstract idea of literacy tests but then I also think some questions in this particular literacy test is unnecessarily tricky. And some could be considered historical trivia.
The commerce question is supposed to be answered by reading the constitution by itself, not by reading SCOTUS opinions. So this is different from actual constitutional scholars. That makes this question unsuitable for literacy tests.
At a minimum: I think people should be given ample time to complete a literacy test, at a date and time chosen by the test taker, and also have multiple attempts available. And for the content of the test, they should have actual elementary school students attempt it to make sure it isn't too difficult.
VariousPrograms|1 year ago
whaaaaat|1 year ago
Even "who is the first president" knowledge shouldn't be a bar to voting. Do you think they offered this literacy test in the native languages of all taking it? Do you think all people in the US had the opportunity to learn, in their language, the history of the country?
At the time there were systemic barriers to education that meant that many folk were probably not even taught who the first president was. Let alone how old you have to be to be president.
w0de0|1 year ago
roenxi|1 year ago
That isn't actually all that clear cut. I'd agree that it is probably a bad idea, but there is potential that the results would be better if voters understood the system that they were delivering instructions into.
kelnos|1 year ago
Except not, because any test whatsoever should be disallowed when it comes to voter registration.
shiroiushi|1 year ago
edflsafoiewq|1 year ago
kccqzy|1 year ago
The commerce question is supposed to be answered by reading the constitution by itself, not by reading SCOTUS opinions. So this is different from actual constitutional scholars. That makes this question unsuitable for literacy tests.
At a minimum: I think people should be given ample time to complete a literacy test, at a date and time chosen by the test taker, and also have multiple attempts available. And for the content of the test, they should have actual elementary school students attempt it to make sure it isn't too difficult.
giraffe_lady|1 year ago