Is it too easy to vote?

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 09:38:33 -0500, Buzz <...@att.com

For years, this country has been making it easier to vote.
Extended times, early voting, registering when you pick up your
government assistance check(s), etc.

It seems like it's time to stop making it easier and start making
it something of value again (no, not the value that ACORN brings to
voters with cash).

Politically incorrect as it is, there is something inherently
wrong when people that are tax *consumers* are able to vote
(especially when so much of campaigning has become politicians telling
us what they're going to give us). What's odd to me is that while
it's politically incorrect to suggest that perhaps it's a look should
be taken at the process when people are simply voting for a living,
it's somehow become completely acceptable to state that someone else
needs to pay more.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It
can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves
money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority
always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the
public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses
over loose fiscal policy..." ~~ paraphrased from Sir Alex Fraser
Tytler (1742-1813) Scottish jurist and historian.

It's obvious that we're far along in the process laid out by Sir
Alex Fraser Tytler.

A few minutes poking oround on youtube will yield people
celebrating that Obama is going to pay for their gas, their house
note., etc. People cheer that Obama is going to give them money from
"his stash".

Exit interviews from the '08 elections showed people proclaiming
that they voted for hope and change, yet they thought that Republicans
controlled Congress. It does cause one to wonder if they even knew
what they thought they were changing *from* and *to*, given that they
didn't even know what the *from* was.

It's scary to suggest that only porperty owners be allowed to
vote right now. By the 2010 elections, the government may be the only
property owner left at the rate they're confiscating, taking over,
and taxing, so I'll stick to the other issue: passing a test to vote.

Would it be unreasonable to have a 2-10 question test that must
be passed before being allowed to vote? Should people be able to
demonstrate the most rudimentary knowledge of the political system
before participating in it?

__________________________
Should they know who their Representatives are?

Should they know that "welfare" doesn't come from the government, but
from fellow taxpayers?

Should they know which party currently controls Congress/Oval Office?

Should they know that they do NOT have a right to vote in a Federal
election but that it is a priviledge (and probably should be taken
somewhat seriously)?

Should they be able to demonstrate some knowledge regarding the
national debt/current deficit/surplus?

_______________________

I know this issue will definitely not be brought up in the current
environment, but I think it should be at some point. The republic can
not survive people voting for a living, people voting to punish
others, or people who don't even know who they're voting "against" in
order to get "change".

Besides knee jerk reactions, what would be reasons for NOT having a
test of the most basic of knowledge of the country/government in order
to vote?