One Man, One Vote? Joseph Farkas thinks that every vote cast should equal every other vote. He feels that many people are voting without knowing why they are voting for a certain person or why they aren’t voting for another. He says that a vote cast by a person with no or very little knowledge in the election should not count as much as a vote cast by a person who knows a lot about the election. The people who care about who has an important role in the government should have a bigger say in who is going to have that important role. The votes cast by a person who doesn’t really know why they are voting for someone should not equal as much a san election educated person.
I do not think that this is a good idea at all. It would not encourage people to learn more about the election but keep them away from the voting area. It will probably make people not want to vote because many of them would think that their vote will not mean as much to the election. It would make the people who are familiar with the candidates want to vote because they would have a bigger say in who gets elected.
It would be very hard to decide who know what about the running candidates and issues that are being addressed. They would have to give some kind of multiple-choice question test that you had to fill out while voting. It would take a long time for each person to vote and I think that would make people less encouraged to come and vote. Since the only way to link a vote with a test is to have them on the same paper the voters would have to take a test every time they voted. Most people want to walk in, vote, and walk out. They don’t want to fill out a test asking them about what they know.
The Essay on Voter Turnout in Federal Elections
In the past half of the twentieth century, researchers observed a decline in the voter turnout in federal elections. It has also been observed that the voter turnout has been higher in presidential elections than in midterm elections. The main factors of the declines are the citizens’ negative public attitudes and the widespread political “apathy”. On the other hand, the ...
For the people who don’t know a lot about the election, they don’t want to say that when they vote. If the test was only optional it might work out a little better. The test would be on the ballot and if you wanted to fill it out then you could. If you didn’t fill it out or failed it when you took it then your vote would still equal one vote.
The people who took the test and passed it would get their vote counted as more than a normal vote. This would be better because if someone just wanted to vote and leave they wouldn’t have to take the test. For those who wanted their vote to count more they could take the test. A problem with this is that no one would know if they passed or failed the test.
The only large disadvantage would be how to score the tests. Each voting area would have to have a computer that could score each test and then send all the results through modem and phone lines to a large server that could keep track of everything. This would be expensive. The problem with this is that anything to do with computers, modems, and phone lines; hackers and can get the data and alter it in any way they please. I’m sure the government could make it hard for people to get access to the data but any experienced hacker could get at it with little work. Having different people’s votes equal different amounts is not a good idea.
It would only make more people not want to vote. The only way it could work would be to make the test optional and have the votes of those who don ” take the test equal a normal vote. Even this would make a lot of people not want to go to the voting areas to vote.
