• Zayda said on Jun 07, 2008....

  Four most current, in order from most recent (not counting our current):
  
  Bill Clinton
  
  George Herbert Walker Bush
  
  Ronald Reagan
  
  Jimmy Carter
  
  
  1. 1) The USA has 40 real states and two honorary states.   False
  
  2. 2) The President can declare war on anyone at any time.   False: The number of Justices is set by the Judiciary Act Neither the Judiciary Act or the Constitution specify any qualifications for Justices, so a President can nominate anyone he chooses to do so; however, the person nominated must be confirmed by the Senate.
  
  3. The Supreme Court must have members of all races and religions   False: The President can request a formal Declaration of War from Congress and Congress is supposed to approve the request for the Declaration of War. However, as we have seen with the past, this can sometimes be circumvented because the language of the constitution only addresses the issuance of a formal declaration of war.
  
  4. 4) U.S. Congress representatives are elected for two year terms only.  True--Members of the House of Representatives serve a two year term, but they retain their seat until either their term expires (they lose a re-election), their death, or their retirement. Senators, on the other hand, serve a 6 year term (however, approximately 1/3 of the Senate is up for re-election every two years).
  
  
  
  I'm not naming the Senators from the state I currently live in; too identifying.
  
  However, Jim Webb is one of the current Senators of Virginia. He was elected to his term in November 2007.  Prior to that Webb served as the Secretary of the Navy and was a decorated Marine who served during the Vietnam War.   He's a Democrat.
  
  The other current Senator from Virginia is John Warner; he's a Republican
  
  
  Would this be too restrictive of a test?  I'm not sure it would be restrictive enough, frankly.
  
  
  
  
  

• brit said on Jun 07, 2008....

  
  Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush & Ronald Reagan. 1. false, 2. false, 3. false (guessing), 4. true, but they can always run for reelection
  Senators of my state: Boxer and Feinstein
  So.....how did I do???

• anonymous said on Jun 08, 2008....

  paranoid cunt

• Lucytorial said on Jun 08, 2008....

  TNP ~ in doing this little experiment you are making it difficult for those of us out of the US that are following this impending ego pitch in November to comment.
  
  I would have been correct for the latest 3 president,s I would also have been correct for true / false answers 1,2,3 did not know 4, obviously cannot answer 5 but if you would like to know in my home state we have a female representative, and locally another female representative in parliament.
  

• TheNakedProfessor said on Jun 08, 2008....

   
  Brit, you can vote
   
  Zayda, you can vote but make you that you match up the correct vote with the desired issue / candidate
   
  Lucy - you can pretend you're one of us and your state is Maine. Good luck. So far you're hanging on by a chad...
   
   

• mOOn_platOOn said on Jun 08, 2008....

  Choose the most recent three Presidents (not including the current one) of the United States from among the following:

   Harry Truman

  Johnny Cash

  John Fitzgerald Roosevelt

   TRUE or FALSE?

  1) The USA has 40 real states and two honorary states. TRUE the honorary states are Arkansas and New Jersey.

  2) The President can declare war on anyone at any time. TRUE just as GW Bush declared war on the U.S. Constitution most recently.

   3) The Supreme Court must have members of all races and religions. TRUE if it's going to stand a chance of working properly.

  4) U.S. Congress representatives are elected for two year terms only. FALSE. Once elected it's impossible to get rid of them, kind of like cockroaches in New York City.

  NAME ONE OF THE TWO U.S. SENATORS FROM YOUR HOME STATE:

  This is a trick question. I'm from the District of Columbia, which, as you know, has no representation in the federal system.

  Can I vote now?

   

• Kilgore_V_Trout said on Jun 08, 2008....

  Listen sonny, either people get to vote or they don't - taking tests is bullshit. The only test in a democracy is citizenship. Everything else is stacking the deck in somebody's favor. Shame on you.

• TheNakedProfessor said on Jun 08, 2008....

   
  Yes platOOn, you may now vote - in Lithuania.
   
  Trout - this is not a democracy. This is a republic masquerading as a democracy. You can't vote anymore, you just disqualified yourself for not knowing that. So sorry.
   
   

• Lucytorial said on Jun 08, 2008....

  Hanging on??? now thats not very nice TNP.... I would prefer my little island frankly than your overcrowded continent, at least here I can celebrate my lesbian leaders!
  
  lol
  

• Lucytorial said on Jun 08, 2008....

  You can still visit though, we can always do with a little art here and there.

• Spazzmodius said on Jun 08, 2008....

   
  who SHOULD have been the last three presidents - Hillary Swank, Billy Joel and Al Gore...
   
  False, false, true, true
   
  Senator Bo Weevil (or do you want REAL names???)
   

• somethingunUSual said on Jun 09, 2008....

  Well, now we know that Zayda doesn't live in Virginia. One down, 49 to go.

• TheNakedProfessor said on Jun 09, 2008....

   
  -Or, maybe you're just easy to throw off....
  Lucy ... a LITTLE art? Na uh.
   
   

• brit said on Jun 11, 2008....

  woohoo! I can vote. Thanks Prof!

• TinSoldier said on Jun 13, 2008....

  1) The last three presidents, not including the incumbent:
  Bill Clinton
  George H.W. Bush
  Ronald Reagan
  
  2) 1 - false. 2 - false. 3 - false. 4 - true.
  
  3) Gordon Smith and Ron Wyden (do I get extra credit for naming both)?
  
  But in the end, a test of this nature wouldn't matter. In the US I don't get to vote directly for the President of the United States, I get to vote members of the Electoral College which are apportioned per state depending on the number of Senators and Congressional Representatives, and said electors are under no obligation to vote for anyone in particular.
  
  Which is as it should be, IMO.
  
  
  

• Lucytorial said on Jun 13, 2008....

  TS ~ This is why I don't like the US system, here in Oz we vote directly for the prime minister, it means our votes count, thats why you get fined here if you don't vote in a federal election.
  
  At least I know that when I vote for someone it isn't going to be ignored in the vote for presidency (my case prime ministerialship)
  

• TinSoldier said on Jun 13, 2008....

  I didn't know you voted directly for the prime minister. I thought that he was just the head of the party or whatever.
  
  The US was never meant to be a popular democracy, though; it was meant to be a federal republic. Democracy happens at the local level, where it works well. Then again, the states were far more independent entities in the past when the Constitution was written.
  
  The House of Representatives was supposed to be the "people's house", a body apportioned directly by the population of each state and elected directly by the people.
  
  The Senate was supposed to represent the state governments and their interests -- originally senators were appointed by however the state legislatures saw fit but most ended up being popularly elected by the people anyway and so the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution made it the law of the land.
  
  The Supreme Court (and other federal courts) was supposed to represent the law itself, including common law and written law and precedent, without regards to popular whims or sentiment.
  
  The President, and the office of the executive in general, was supposed to represent the various interest of all -- the law and the people and the states and the nation as a whole. Mainly as a face of the nation to represent to other nations, but also as something of a humble leader to the other branches of government. Hence the compromise method of electing him or her.
  
  Remember also that at the founding of the nation many were rightly suspicious of both popular government (which really had not been to successful up to that point) as well as excessively strong executives. And yet others recognized the need for a strong executive in order to actually get things done instead of having everything endlessly planned in committee.
  
  So that's what we got, I guess. Sorry this was so long, heh, I understand that it doesn't make a lot of sense to everyone and I'm not exactly a history major or a constitutional scholar so I may have gotten some things wrong.
  
  

• Lucytorial said on Jun 13, 2008....

  It makes sense to me.  yes we do elect directly, all levels of government however, note that each party also votes who will play the various rolls of government ie: Prime minister (Rudd) wins office he then elects certain members who have seats in parliament to their offices, environment, health, economy treasurer etc, his party is now the ruling party however the senate may be made up of a majority of the other party thereby making it difficult to pass new laws, skewed to only one parties liking there the debates and amendments get made, in general is a similar model however neither model seems to do what it originally set out to.

• TinSoldier said on Jun 13, 2008....

  "however neither model seems to do what it originally set out to."
  
  There is truth right there. How does one set up a system of responsive government that can do the things that government should do efficiently and without corruption and yet also where most people in their day-to-day lives don't have to worry about affairs of state or people with the force of law telling them how to live their lives?
  
  I think we humans are still trying to figure that out.
  

• kelly said on Jun 16, 2008....

  The federal republic definition for the US is kind of iffy, too:
  
  
  "A federal republic is a federation of states with a republican form of government. A federation is the central government. The states in a federation also maintain all political sovereignty that they do not yield to the federation. Usage of the term republic is inconsistent but, as a minimum, it means a state or federation of states that does not have a monarch as head of state."
  
  
  Many would argue that the states have lost their sovereignty, and certainly I would argue that we recently acquired a monarch.  ;-)

• somethingunUSual said on Jun 17, 2008....

  Please remember one critical factor. The U.S. of A. was created by a bunch of guys wearing powdered wigs. While the distinction may seem superficial, so does skin cancer.

• TinSoldier said on Jun 17, 2008....

  Hey, kelly, good to see you comment on my little rant.
  
  I'll need to read more later.
  
  (Sorry for the blogjack, TNP.)
  

• TheNakedProfessor said on Jun 17, 2008....

  So Tin, why not just let the Senate and the Congress elect the President? Why even have an electoral college if the political elites get to decide the outcome? This would certainly be better than the method used in 2000, when the chief executive was elected by 5 Supreme Court justices.
   
  Screw it. I say let the people speak (vote). If it doesn't really matter, then why bother with all of the expensive primaries? Why (if I'm Hillary or Huckabee) drop out just because of primary losses and lack of (anyway) uncommitted delegates? The nominees are selected AT THE CONVENTION, so why not (if I'm Hillary or Huckabee) take it all the way there no matter WHAT happens in primaries?
   
  Does any of this make any sense?
   

• TinSoldier said on Jun 17, 2008....

  "So Tin, why not just let the Senate and the Congress elect the President? Why even have an electoral college if the political elites get to decide the outcome?"
  
  I don't know, TNP. Why not? Maybe we'd get someone better qualified instead of it being a popularity contest where the people have little say in the names of the contestants.
  
  Then again, it would probably be even more political than it is now (that is, clubby between who does favors for whom, etc., and less to do with policy or principle.)
  
  "If it doesn't really matter, then why bother with all of the expensive primaries? Why (if I'm Hillary or Huckabee) drop out just because of primary losses and lack of (anyway) uncommitted delegates? The nominees are selected AT THE CONVENTION, so why not (if I'm Hillary or Huckabee) take it all the way there no matter WHAT happens in primaries?"
  
  Again, I don't know. Personally, I think the primaries are a crock and that the two major parties' nominating methods are far too entwined with the government itself. I personally believe in a top-two primary.
  
  Look up the history of primaries on Wikipedia. It's pretty interesting how the system was supposed to take the decision of who goes on the ballot out of the backrooms and into the hands of the people but now we seem to have ended up with the exact opposite.
  
  "Does any of this make any sense?"
  
  Of course not. It's politics. The only sense comes when politicians are fighting with one another and leaving the rest of us the hell enough alone.
  

• TinSoldier said on Jun 17, 2008....

  Here's some reforms that I would prefer:
  
  Election day is a national holiday -- but no mandatory voting.
  
  Do away with the electoral college but votes for president are apportioned by whoever wins each congressional district and two per state. No more winner-take-all.
  
  Political parties can endorse/nominate/bless candidates whatever to their hearts' content. But primary elections will no longer be spread out over eight or so months and will not be run by the parties -- they will be held either on a single day nationwide or in a small set of days based on larger regions. Legitimate parties can get their candidates on the ballot, some form of preference voting or something determines the top two candidates for the final ballot in November.
  
  Hmm. Gotta find some way to illegalize gerrymandering by party and making sure that districts are drawn up based on political, economic, and cultural ties within a community, at least making an attempt to draw a boundary around an actual community instead of... well... gerrymandering.
  
  I'm not big on campaign finance reforem, but I think that at least elected officials as technical employees of the government should be held to the highest standard with regards to gifts and their contributions should be limited. Challengers' contributions should not be limited but they should have to fully disclose their campaign funds.
  
  And term limits, of course. We've already got them for the pres, after all.
  

Comment on "THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: TNP's Voter Literacy Test"

Currently tagged	voter literacy test politics democracy USA elections primaries speeches speechwriters Political Blog satire alternate reality virginia america (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment