Does anyone know statistics about whether the majority of Americans would favor a voting test?
831215
50% would not take it 25% would fail, 19 % would cheat 5% would guess\n1% care
703709
In MN, they said that 56% (or 57%, can't remember exactly) of registered voters actually voted. And that is actually down just a little from the last midterm election. \n\nNation wide, I believe I heard it was 40% of registered voters.
774517
I think the idea has some merit, as long as people are allowed the option of abstaining or spoiling their ballot paper.\n\nMy primary concern though is making sure that people make an informed choice, I think that is at least as important as increasing turnout. I think compulsory voting would only exacerbate the problem of uninformed voting, unless you make people sit through presentations from all the candidates on the ballot paper and then pass a test afterwards...let's face it, that ain't ever gonna happen.
388025
i would say the majority are americans
1051273
It should not be. Nor do I think voting should be a requirement to voice your opinion.\n\nA vote is saying that you affirmatively approve one candidate over another. If none of the people on the ballot are ones that I actually support, I wouldn't vote for them.\n\nHowever, because I am still stuck with whatever laws the majority-elected government chooses to enact,  I absolutely have the right to voice my opinion about those. Especially since I don't actually have the opportunity to vote for most of those laws directly.
670835
That's a hard one.  I wish we could move to handcounted paper ballots, but they will say they put too much money in buying the new machines that they purchased due to help America vote act, but if we can't see the software programming, they can still rig them..many programmers say that.  The system works fine in other countries, but when they don't want accurate vote counts, we won't get that.\n\nWe should be in the streets every week like they did in the Ukraine.  You people who say its sour grapes are simply not informed or were not there, but what can you expect from sheep?  Intensive research, not?
814446
This question would be a lot better if you had included some examples to see what you are getting at.\n\nI think statistical data is risky at best.  It makes a large body of assumptions, and those assumptions are not usually spelled out when legislators or voters (in the case of ballot propositions) look at the stats.  \n\nNow as to "circumstantial events," I am at a loss to know what you mean.  All events are circumstantial; this does not tell us what sort of events or what sort of circumstances you mean to include.  Circumstantial evidence, in law, is evidence that points one way, but could be interpreted some other way.  \n\nIt is very hard to prove a criminal case on circumstantial evidence because of the high standard of proof: beyond a reasonable doubt.  Most people have no such high standards when they study statistics.  If something is like 90% or 95%, then possibly you are reasonable in taking those stats seriously.  But often legislators and voters get little more than a scant majority in the figures offered, and those could be off by quite a bit.  We need to know the complete design of the survey before we can take statistics seriously, and we seldom get that much detail.\n\nAdd to this the fact that statistics are never a valid indicator, in themselves, of what is right or wrong, but only what is popular or unpopular.  Think and act independently, and vote accordingly.
1035167
Some states had such tests before the civil rights movement.  Those test weren't use to guarantee intelligent voting, but rather to exclude people from voting because of the color of their skin.\n\nYou have to be very careful when setting up "tests" for democracy that they aren't used as an excuse to prevent some from participating in the democratic process.\n\nPart of the beauty of democracy is the allowance for the difference of thought and action, and in the USA, if you don't like something/someone you can always change it...vote differently next time....campaign for change....participate to affect change, or you can just sit back and complain.   The CHOICE is yours.
1007305
We have as much power in those decisions as we did when we did our research before we pulled the voting lever.  I don't think "none" is the right answer.  It is the right answer if you just slop to the poles and choose whichever name you've heard and/or seen most on the TV or radio.  In that case, you deserve what we get (not the author of the question [I hope] but anyone who does so).  Please, if you are going to vote, don't just vote what your parents have voted for the last 40 yrs, look up voting records on key issues to you (ie, the war in Iraq, Marriage amendment, Immigration, legalization of marijuana) or whatever, just make an informed decision instead of just hoping for the best.
1021314
In the last polls, 80% of the population was eligible to vote but only 74% of that 80% was registered to vote. In other words, out of a 100 people 80 were eligible to vote but 59.2 were registered to vote.\n80% of 100 = 80\n74% of 80 = 59.2
249992
I'm going to guess the 51% of people who voted for Bush.  No, that number is probably smaller because most people just don't care.
274254
Most americans who dont vote do so because they either dont care or dont think their vote counts. One thing that i feel would make a difference in the number of voters in this country would change the system to be a direct election and get rid of the electoral college. Another thing that could be done is what some countrys like Australia do and fine those people who do not vote, another possibility would be to make election day a national holiday like Italy does and surprising ly Italy has the highest percentage of the national poulation of voting age that vote.
830347
Oddly enough this is NOT an easy thing to find.  I found it at only a few sites.  Eash contradicting the others.  Once I found an unbiased source, it breaks down like this..... \n\nRep-31%\nDem-29%\nIndependent  40%\n\nAs Voted on Nov 7th\n\nDemocrat 53%\nRepublican 44%\nInd 3%
531374
It would depend on the question I think. Most of the questions on these pages are about how great George Bush is, or Clinton got a BJ. Any real problems are ignored, or reported to Yahoo from crying whiners. So I take on myself to find out the facts. I have only one vote, and I am going to use it for the good of our Country. Poverty and inflation isn't what I will be voting for.
238648
I guess I'm wondering what the alternative would be??\n\nThe "one man, one vote" form of democracy we now enjoy, is only about a century old. Before that, the ability to vote, or the number of votes one could cast, depended on ones wealth and, usually, how much one could pay in taxes.\n\nIn 1959, in Baker v. Carr, the Supreme Court said it was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause to make one person's vote count less than another's.
526640
First off if you vote, at least that is a step in the right direction. Second, The Electoral College and the Popular votes are always off. I agree with you that this is not fair. Our voices are not heard, we are put in a group of Electoral votes and individuals don't count. For the presidency. \nWith all the technology you would think if we could  vote on the computers, then maybe just maybe the computer would not screw up the counts, it would be faster, and well no one would be counting the "hanging chads". \nGood Question\n\nAdded 4:10 a.m. Found this for you....The Electoral College was established by the framers of the Constitution as a compromise between the election of the President by popular vote and the election of the President by the Congress.  The framers were concerned that members of the public would not be able to stay informed about candidates from other regions. They were also worried about the arrangements that might be made between the state’s Representatives behind closed doors.  While the concern over deals struck between our elected Representatives might continue to be a concern in modern times, the ability of the public to be informed about the candidates is not...http://alllaw.com/articles/constitutional/article1.asp\n\nand getting it changed back is a lot of work....It will be interesting to see the public’s reaction if the results of the Electoral College don’t match up with the results of the popular vote in this Presidential election.  One strong argument for keeping the Electoral College is that it forces Presidential candidates to campaign in states with small populations.  If the Presidential election were decided by the popular vote, candidates might focus their campaigns only on highly populated areas, leaving states with smaller populations with little say in who is elected President.  It is hard to say whether this argument is strong enough to overcome any sense of unfairness voters may feel if the candidate who wins the popular vote loses the Electoral College election.  Because the Electoral College process is part of our Constitution, it can only be changed by a Constitutional amendment – not an easy thing to do....http://alllaw.com/articles/constitutional/article1.asp\n\n When, in 1824, Andrew Jackson won the popular vote but lost the presidency to John Quincy Adams, Jackson lost no time in complaining that he believed the election was stolen. He complained early, he complained often; even after he won the presidency the next time around he was still complaining...http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/11.19C.mundy.gore.htm\n\nI was so interrested in your question I did some more research and went to a wonderful site. AskALibrarian@oclc.org. They sent me those links. \n\nhttp://www.votescount.com/books/elecoll.htm\n\nhttp://www.uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_history.php\n\nhttp://www.fec.gov/pages/ecmenu2.htm
989484
Like all electronic instruments, it can be rigged. I am in a position where I can confirm that. The best method of voting remains 1 man/woman 1 vote via a ballot paper which has to be manually marked. I suppose the Republicans will disagree with this because it means they cannot use the Supreme Court to help them win elections.