Originally posted by Alf:
Someone whose parents can afford cable, a subscription to the Wall Street Journal, etc, would have a MUCH MUCH higher chance of passing the test than someone who lives in a Chicago ghetto with no money at all (I'm sorry that I have to stereotype here), who maybe can't read well enough to understand the newspapers OR the test questions. I realize we are talking about giving an oppportunity to those teenagers who want it, and maybe those in the former group would have more free time to get out and vote and be active, so they SHOULD be voting. But I also feel this is a form of discrimination against those classes who may not have the oppotunity to stay up on current events even though they may be those who have the most to say and are hit the hardest by certain governmental mandates, such as the war on drugs or welfare battles.
I question if you are ready for change of any sort? To make great changes in this country, many "dangerous roads" were taken....
Starting off with the very first traveling here to make a true "democracy",
the the Decloration of Independence,
then The Civil Rights Movement.
At the time, these were all dangerous too.. half-assing change doesn't work.
Why generation after generation do people accept the way our lower class lives? Especially when we have money and time to change it. Kids in the ghetto probably wouldn't pass the test because their schooling system sucks, therefore they don't become interested in such things. And why does that system suck? Because we the people allow it to be. No, not by capitalism. But because our tax money is going to welfare.. a system that keeps the poor man poor, while it should be going to raising the bar of education in inner city public schools.
I hardly believe that allowing EVERYONE to take a test on our country and the government is "discrimination". Once again, if people don't know the basics of our country and how it works, I turn to the schools again. Why aren't they learning this? If what you're saying is true; that children with less money know less about the government or government issues than everyone else.. thats a sad statement of our democracy.
I understand that as of right now, it is more difficult for poor kids to know what's going on in the world.. but you act like it is impossible for them. They have libraries.. with tons of newspapers. Also, just because someone doesn't have cable doesn't mean they can't watch the news. There is constantly news shows on NBC, ABC, FOX and CBS. If someone was interested in current events, they could easily access them. It isn't like taking a test to be allowed to do things in this country is a new concept. For example, you must take a test to become a citizen, to get a driver's license, and to pass high school. Voting is a pretty big issue, and a priviledge. A priviledge that I think should be extended to certain people under 18.
Originally posted by Alf:
[QB]
I think as far as the short answers go, that might not work so well. You will have the biases of the "graders" come into play here. Why not keep a bunch of people who think that socialism is really the best way to go from voting, by grading them harshly on a short answer that shows these tendencies?[QB]
Ever heard of standardized testing? Every high schooler is MADE to do this. Of course there are short anwser/essay questions that inclue the test-taker's opinion. And yes, some of these questions are on controversial subjects, like drugs and justice. However, they find graders that aren't bias. I'm pretty sure the government would take a voting test more seriously then standardized testings by high schoolers... therefore they'd probably make sure the graders were not being biased.
Ehh... all for now!! btw I'm glad you did keep this topic alive