Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Modest Proposal
I propose that we re-institute civics tests, as a requirement for voting. I was led to consider this by a couple of independent sources over the past day or two. I’ve been listening to Douglas Murray’s latest book, The War on the West, and one of the points that he makes relates to the astonishing historical ignorance of most Americans (and Westerners). Perhaps coincidentally — though perhaps not — a video popped up in my phone’s YouTube feed, titled: “UNREAL: Do Young Americans Know ANYTHING?!” It was amusing, though possibly not a representative sample of young people:
This led me to recall a story that I saw about the inability of most Americans to pass a basic civics exam, specifically using the 100 questions asked as part of the qualification for prospective naturalized citizens. The initial report was in 2018 (here), with a follow-up in 2019 (here), and the results were dismal.
The 2018 result, of a survey of 1,000 Americans, showed that only 36% could pass the citizenship exam. It appears that there are 100 possible questions on the exam, of which 10 are asked of a prospective citizen, and 60% is a passing grade. You can take a practice test here, if you’re interested. Personally, I found it to be almost laughably easy, without studying.
I can’t resist taking a stab at the authors of the report, which was commissioned by the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation. They stated:
Surprisingly, the poll found stark gaps in knowledge depending on age. Those 65 years and older scored the best, with 74 percent answering at least six in 10 questions correctly. For those under the age of 45, only 19 percent passed with the exam, with 81 percent scoring a 59 percent or lower.
The only thing surprising about this, I think, is that the folks at Woodrow Wilson found the relatively greater knowledge of the old, and relative ignorance of the young, to be surprising. I do wish that they’d provided further details about the age breakdown.
The 2019 report was a larger sample, 41,000 Americans, and the results were a bit better but still dismal. The overall pass rate was about 40% (the report said “four in 10”), with only 27% of Americans under age 45 passing the test. This result may not have been nationally representative, as they reported separate results for each state (and consequently, the sample may have been skewed in favor of lower-population states).
In any event, we have a standard civics exam, which we use for purposes of qualifying prospective citizens for naturalization. Why don’t we use this same test as a qualification for voting?
I do understand that there is (allegedly) a history of such tests being used unfairly to exclude black voters. (I accept these claims for the present discussion, though I’ve never witnessed it, and given the falsehoods spread recently by various and sundry race hustlers, I’m starting to doubt claims like this that were made during the Civil Rights movement.) But even assuming that in the past, voting tests were used unfairly to exclude blacks — by asking blacks hard questions, and asking whites easy questions — this should not invalidate the idea of testing. It should just invalidate the idea of unfair testing.
We can do such testing fairly, can’t we? In fact, we seem to be doing so, asking these questions of prospective naturalized citizens. Doing so in the voting context should be no problem.
The results reported by the Woodrow Wilson Foundation folks don’t give any indication of whether such testing would have a “disparate impact” by race, or by political party for that matter. I don’t care about such a disparate impact. I do not wish to exclude black people from voting. I wish to prevent voting by people who are demonstrably, monumentally ignorant, whatever the color of their skin.
I can’t even predict whether such a system would be good for Republicans or good for Democrats. I just don’t know. The information that I have indicates that older folks would be substantially more likely to pass.
What do you think of my modest proposal?
Published in Elections
Why would anyone trust politicians to make accurate tests? Imagine if AOC made the test?
Also referring back to my comment #1.
Also, ignorance especially among young people has always been a problem. And if you rely on people who don’t know much to set up a test, people who really know things are likely to “fail.”
I’m trying to figure out what this has to do with eating children.
Wrong thread for that. I think the PIT was discussing the Utah County AG’s unforced denial of Cannibalism and Ritual sex abuse.
In theory, this sounds great. You are absolutely correct to castigate the ignorance of voters, which is all too evident. And I love that Arizona requires its high school seniors to pass the US citizenship exam to earn their diplomas. But as some of the previous comments have alluded to, it depends on whom writes the exam, as well as grades them. I guarantee you that this would not work well in places like Philadelphia city public schools or most any public school in New Jersey. Or anything around where I live in deep blue northern Virginia.
I would rather parents take over their school systems away from turgid, woke teacher unions or move their children into better environments (homeschooling, religious education, etc.) than adopt what will be castigated (unfairly) as “voter suppression,” or a “poll tax.”
Mayor Pete would love to sponsor, as he’d probably phrase it, a common sense civics curriculum that would propel America into a new era.
No, it’s the right thread. Traditionally a “Modest Proposal” is a suggestion to eat children.
I know that.
This was indeed a requirement in California, in the 60s. But it was required to pass the 8th grade and start High School. I flunked it the first time, because I thought I didn’t have to study for it. We who failed got a second chance, and if we failed that one, we had to go to summer school. I was told I flunked the second time by a teacher with some issues. The prospect of summer school was horrifying! My dad new that my flunking was impossible since I studied for it this time, and called the vice principal at his house to confirm the results. The VP made the teacher drive to my house that evening and apologize for the “hoax”. Different times!
The US has more shame per capita than any other western nation, but the majority is earmarked for people who misgender their fellow citizens.
He’s gonna regret alienating those potential voters when he runs for governor.
Shaming is very effective. My mom and dad were both immigrants and knew a lot of American history. One of my dad’s nightly pastimes was throwing out a history question and shaming anyone who didn’t know. I swear I was 9 when he asked me how many Jews died in the holocaust.
I didn’t use the shame game as much on my kids. But they got – and get – called out whenever necessary.
Does anyone play Trivial Pursuit type games anymore? As a family we all helped a friend study for his immigration exam and it was a blast for about six months (well … we did turn it into a drinking game) Ever since I thought a trivial pursuit type game about American History would be fun. I’m assured that no one under a certain age would be interested.
It would have helped a lot if after the Soviet Union fell the GOP made a big deal about the Fed not pushing the economy around and educating people on the perniciousness of non-public goods and unfunded liabilities. It’s too dry and people just want government to steal for them. Then voting creates a feedback loop that you can’t stop.
Then throw in the fact that we did every single thing wrong in the face of the wage deflation and job destruction from automation and globalized labor. Trading with China just forces us to spend more money on the military. There is no foresight, and then voting just makes it worse.
I taught a citizenship class for adult ed ESL students one time. They passed and were so excited to vote. I went far beyond the 100 questions and taught all of the Constitution using a paraphrased version. In their copy, I had them identify the source of each of the 100 questions that referred back to the Constitution (most do). I gave them a four page roadmap or articles, clauses, and BOR so they could u sweat and it section by section. We discussed a few hot Supreme Court cases. One was Kelo. After they passed, the next election had something on the ballot that prevented the state from pulling a Kelo. They went to the polls knowing more about the issues than most locals. Legal immigrants are engaged. They go through too much to become one of us. All I had to do was give them background and let them practice their English discussing with each other.
Converts have zeal, while inheritors are often feckless and blasé.
The “highly educated” believe that since they are smart in one thing, they are smart in everything.
And a college education ain’t what it used to be.
I don’t know why I thought of this…
Socrates just don’t ever go out of style.
Agree in principle. However, the leftists who control both K-12 and Higher Ed would ensure that Civics education was based on Action Civics. In the main, this means that students would be required to engage in activism for credit. Can you guess which type of activism would receive credit and which would not?
I suspect this is already the case in many places.
It most certainly is.
Indeed he don’t.
Dialog 2 yo momma.
Loud Apologia 2 the Senate. Word.