Chicago Columnist Illinois Leader Political Analyst Entrepreneur Business Advisor Chicago Illinois Review

SEIFFE:  Civic Literacy 

Monday, April 30, 2007

By Ralf Seiffe

Dummies who vote are a danger to the Republic.  Those who exercise the franchise without a minimum command of our civil condition cannot make good choices and are susceptible to manipulation.  Our founders recognized this and imposed qualification for suffrage to ensure that only responsible and engaged citizens voted. That’s a good idea--then and now.  Over the years, however, qualifying requirements have been outlawed by amendment or by decisions in the courts.  Now, new voting technology has appeared which can overcome the legitimate objections to a qualifying test and permit states to reconsider some minimum level of civic literacy for voting.  Here's a thought on how we might do so. 

Let’s start with the premise that any person, who is a citizen and of age, should be able to vote.  That said, what’s the harm in asking voters to take some effort to understand what they are voting for? 

In a perfect world, voters would find it their duty and pleasure to learn about the issues they face.  Reading the occasional newspaper or watching the news fairly regularly should acquaint voters with the nation and state’s principal officeholders and the major controversies.  It might also be desirable for voters to have a modicum of appreciation for the Constitution. 

Asking voters to demonstrate some mastery of current affairs should be the universal qualification to enter the voting booth.  The historical problem in asking for evidence of civic competence is that unscrupulous politicians once used such tests as a tool to exclude their political enemies.  Examples include tales of literacy tests in the deep South which asked some voters to name all the signers of The Declaration of Independence--and the colonies from which they hailed while others were merely asked to name the president.  These were clearly designed to exclude Blacks and were patently unfair. 

If, however, all voters had to show they are smarter than a fifth grader, the quality of our elected officials should improve.  And, asking everyone to take a test would eliminate the argument that a civic literacy test is a discriminatory bar to voting. 

Now that we have started voting electronically, the capability to actually qualify every voter has become possible.  Who could object to the voting machine randomly asking the voter five quick questions like “Who is the Lieutenant Governor” or “How long is the term of a U.S. representative” or “From the following list of five names, choose all of Illinois’s U.S. Senators.” 

Let’s assume that mastery of 100 such softball questions are enough to define a voter’s ability to make an informed choice.  The electronics behind the new voting machines could choose five questions and ask them before allowing the voter to continue. If they answered three correctly, then they are assumed to be qualified.  Alternatively, the civic illiterates unable to score a 60%, could continue, but their vote would be electronically discarded.  After all, we would not want to damage their self-esteem. 

Certain groups will object to this suggestion because they realize that a thinking electorate will reduce their power. Others will think it discriminatory and it is--but, it is not racist.  It discriminates against those who do not know enough to vote.Assuming we were able to get around the Teachers’ Union and the Democrat’s certain objections to upgrading the electorate, what other effects might we expect?   Here are three possibilities: 

First, those who doubt their ability to answer the questions will self-identify and stay away from the polls.  This would tend to overweight those who know about civic circumstances and underweight the ignorant.  That’s a direct and desired effect. 

Next politicians would--or should--respond.  They will begin to insist that the schools actually teach their constituencies something about the country’s governing principles.  That will happen because they will be uncompetitive for higher office outside of their immediate precincts unless they can count on the support of their home district. 

Finally, could one hope that the media would rise to the occasion?  Would the demand for information necessary to vote make the media actually examine what they distribute?  Rather than another car-jacking or Tri-State fatality, might some column inches on the failure of the Legislature to fund the State’s pensions be better? 

Some years ago, Illinois ended the practice of voting a “straight ticket” to force the voter to make a choice as much as keeping votes from being manipulated.  But since then, we have become so uncomfortable making any value judgments that a program asking voters to demonstrate even a basic grasp of civics is probably a non-starter.   Nevertheless, it’s in our interest to upgrade the electorate so that everybody is capable of informed participation and have an interest in participating.

© 2007 Ralf Seiffe

Ralf Seiffe advises business start-ups and product launches from Chicago, Illinois and is a political analyst and columnist for the Illinois Leader and Illinois Review.

Webmaster Contact:  Alynn Patzer alynn11111@aol.com