Should there be a test in order to allow people to vote in this country?: A question that has been a source of great debate, but one I had an immediate answer to. America, as it is connotatively defined, is a ubiquitously free country; it offers equality (or tries) and proclaims the same rights to everyone. These rights, quite justly, extend to voting, if one is of a certain age. But should they? It should invariably be said that the systematic dissolution or casting aside of peoples’ opinions (should they be deemed incorrect or heinously ignorant) would be a complete and utter infringement on the peoples’ rights as citizens in a free, democratic country, and would actually diminish and dissipate their worth in society as a whole. However, I believe that the greater good should be in play here. Although a great number (possibly a majority, even) of citizens would be shunned from voting and their ill-considered opinions ignored or impugned, I believe that it will be of the aforementioned greater good for the government to enforce such a test.
The imposition of such a test will weed out citizens, firstly, who are ignoramuses and are completely oblivious to the political world as it is; they would be wholly ill-prepared to pass such a test, as their knowledge of politics is dreadfully miniscule, containing merely snatches of the news or commercials, and perhaps the occasional influence from a particularly vehement Reddit user. The second group that would be inevitably excluded would be people with uniquely low IQs, or those with diagnosable mental diseases or disabilities, whose conditions would disallow them from passing or comprehending such complex governmental issues. Another group that would not pass the test would likely be the elderly, and possibly the very young. These opposite sides of the spectrum are respectively deep-set in their ways, and very stubborn in their opinions. The elderly would be very patriotic, yet not understand the finer points of a political tête-à-tête. The very young, however, on the cusp of voting age (which would be dissolved if age were not considered, merely mental capacity) would be likely very ignorant or perhaps even unconcerned with the current political process, finding it in the doldrums and “totally stupid, dood.” After this test is given (which would of course be much more expensive than the current voting process, as proctors would need to be hired and such, although #2 pencil sales would admittedly proliferate) the results would come back and it would be a remarkably small subset (I predict a mere 30-40% of the citizenry, mostly well-educated, middle-aged citizens with some sort of political experience or a high value of patriotism) would be allowed to vote, based on the scale decided by a government (possibly a pass-fail basis, or perhaps a threshold count, a good 70%, maybe?) This is all hypothetical, of course. Now, you say, perhaps, Well how unfair is that? Disallowing the majority of legal citizens from voting in political elections, unable to get a say in whom governs them? What nonsense is that? To put it simply, there is such disparity in intelligence levels, especially in the United States, that allowing everyone to vote would be utter bedlam, as the opinions that arise would not simply be a dichotomy (one side or the other) but would include alternate ideas, completely off-topic tangents or fancies, or the occasional uttering that we should get rid of politics as a whole and let anarchy reign supreme, (until of course the Fire Nation attacks.) In an effort to discourage such nonsense and to actually engage the citizenry in an intelligible, persuasive, and equal debate, some people should not be allowed to be included. Plus, if one really wanted to vote, he could educate himself, or study to pass the test. It is not necessarily exclusion for life; if you want a say, you must put in effort as well.
Recommended for you
As any good lawyer (or perhaps even a passable one) could tell you, there is of course reasonable doubt that anyone is actually accomplishing any real progress in politics nowadays, what with all the ridiculous antic and hijinks of current politicians, who resort to increasingly crude and cutting advertisements that appeal to the uneducated masses. Once we put the gentlemanly qualities back in to politics, sprinkle in a little eloquence, and add just a dash of couth, then we have a recipe (a tasty one, at that) for an engaged political system that would incite progress, stability, and good moral standings. Politicians would be elevated to examples of moral character, as they most certainly currently are not. Debates would be refined gatherings, and sound bites would inspire thoughtful political discussion (as opposed to them situated on Facebook to laugh at while you scroll past the latest Pokémon Go meme). This test, which would decidedly elevate the standing of politics up to a valued part of our culture, is something we should embrace in order to reverse the regression of our society. It will become so critical to the governmental system that it should be implemented sooner, rather that later. Best to do it now, before it is too late, and we are too far gone, lost in the abyss of preposterous politicians scheming to amuse the idiots and the ignorant alike, resorting to dated pop culture references in an inane effort to stay relevant, or else bloating their senses of self-worth to impress those with attention spans comparable to that of goldfish. Allow only the educated to vote, and it will become a domino effect of refinery and poise, and the political system will restore itself to what is once, was: a proud debate of opinions and ideals, a hope against hope that whatever we do, we do it in the hope to improve our nation, and rise America out of the shadow of ignorance and shame.
