Voters Prove Democracy Flawed

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” -Winston Churchill

It is incredibly hard to debate or even talk about politics, especially in our current political climate. Not because people are too sensitive or stubborn, but because many people are misinformed or apathetic.

It is disheartening to know that most Americans’ voices are not heard because voter turnout is abysmal. Even sadder is the fact that so many American voters are woefully misguided when it comes to history and current political topics. We all know these people; the ones who are blinded by party politics, arrogance, or stupidity. Voting is a privilege, and it should not be made a mockery by uninformed people or those that foolishly refuse to vote.

Daniel’s Future Regime Policy Reflection:

It seems logical to me to require some sort of aptitude test for people to gain the right to vote. The test would evaluate your basic civic knowledge. For example, people should be able to identify the incumbent and one of their policies if they plan to vote for that particular office. It would not be some elitist measure to suppress the vote. I just want intelligent people that have considered all sides voting on the future of our nation and its communities.

There are some flaws with my system. Voter turnout is already low so a test would probably negatively affect turnout. That is why we should make voting compulsory like in Australia. Everyone should have to take the test, and those that pass must vote. This system is also arguably undemocratic if you believe that the refusal to vote is a fair expression of civic duty.

Overall, voting is a vital part of our democratic institutions. And voting sometimes appears to be under attack by the ignorance of voters.




8 thoughts on “Voters Prove Democracy Flawed

  1. The problem with this idea is that it’s too easily abused to keep the people who disagree with you from voting. Literacy tests overwhelmingly kept black people from voting. Never, ever trust the people in power to honor the wishes of the people not in power.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Fair point. I was more reflecting on voting and democracy. I agree it would be tough to trust the government. A non-partisan or citizen panel may be a solution.


  2. When you look at the causes of low voter turn out, one of the biggest factors is the day the election is held. For most people it is a work day, and most can not take time off work to vote. Early voting works well to boost turn out, but many states have cut back on the amount of days open for early voting as well as the hours the polls are staying open. Changing the election day to a weekend with plenty of early voting would help greatly. Hugs

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I think that it is interesting that people get to vote simply by being born in the country. They are born here, not of their choice, and then they are given rights, that all people should have in the first place, but then they get precedent over the people that want to come into the country that can’t, but care a lot more than they do. People are born here and many suck off the tit of the government and do not care for anything and do not contribute to society at all and then on the other hand you have those that would love to be in this country and would contribute, but it is more difficult for them because they were not born here.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thanks for sharing. Voting rights are very interesting. Some people mooch off the government, but does that invalidate their opinion or right to vote if they are informed? It is sad to think about those that come to our country; love and invest in the USA so much but are not afforded the right to vote.


  4. I do not think this will work and can lead to voter suppression. First, a test can lead to certain groups of people being denied the ability to vote in much the same way reading tests were used to keep blacks from voting (as a fun exercise look up one of those tests; it is obvious that they were not an objective measure). Second, knowledge of civics does not make a truly informed voter. Plus, let’s consider the question: “T/F Hillary Clinton sold 20% of US uranium to Russia.” I suspect that this answer would have different correct answers based on jurisdiction.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I agree voter suppression would be a concern. I think basic civics can make you a more informed voter. I agree it would be silly to ask such detailed or specific questions like “T/F Hillary Clinton sold 20% of US uranium to Russia.”


Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s