Civics Literacy Quiz

[SicEmBaylor]

This isn't exactly the test that I would require people to pass before gaining the right to vote, but it's pretty close.

My score was 31/33 questions giving me a 93.94%. I'm a bit disappointed, but I suck at the economics. I missed questions 27 and 33. Post your scores folks, don't be shy.

http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx

[Frozen Sooner]

100%.

I thought that questions about Fed market operations and price theory were a little esoteric for a civics quiz.

[SicEmBaylor]

100%.

I thought that questions about Fed market operations and price theory were a little esoteric for a civics quiz.

I can sort of see the price theory, but I think you're right about the Fed market operations. Still, people should probably have a basic idea of what the Fed does.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

31 outta 33.

The debate between Lincoln and Douglass and the last one about tax and debt.

[soonerboomer93]

5

[SicEmBaylor]

5

5 right or 5 wrong?

[soonerboomer93]

just 5

only 'cause i didn't take the quiz

[Boomerbrad]

29/33 - 87.8%

That's a B+ in my book.

[John Kochtoston]

30/33.

[Jimminy Crimson]

Hondo!

Figured I'd be in the 90's somewhere, but good on me.

[texas bandman]

30/33 not bad for a music major. :D

[GottaHavePride]

30/33. I'm not an economist.

[Vaevictis]

100%.

I thought that questions about Fed market operations and price theory were a little esoteric for a civics quiz.

It's because it's sort of a push-poll.

[Frozen Sooner]

It's because it's sort of a push-poll.

Yeah, I noticed that.

[olevetonahill]

I got a 45 , so suck it bitches
Signed an ACORN member:D

[OUHOMER]

I only got a 67, very disappointing.:O BUT BUT I didn't see the movie

[Viking Kitten]

32/33.

Question though for sicem or anyone else who thinks voting rights should be based on passing a test like this...

So let's say I'm a dude who doesn't come from a family that can afford to send me to college until I'm 30. Let's say I'm from a poor family and went to a crappy public school that used outdated textbooks. Let's say I couldn't pass this test, and was not allowed to vote at age 18. Let's say during the following presidential administration, a war got started and the draft was re-instituted. I think you can see where I am going with this.

Do you not understand that universal suffrage is what gives our country its legitimacy? Sure, some people understand the process better than others, and of course some under-informed people's votes can be manipulated. And most of the time, the ignorant people don't vote anyway. However, their right to do so makes them stakeholders, and thus beholden to the rule of law that is the foundation of civilized society.

You need to understand that people who don't have a voice will find somebody to speak for them. And this, sicem dear, is when the Stalins and Hitlers of the world step in.

[yermom]

the Stalins and Hitlers were charismatic, that's part of the problem

that test is a little tough IMO for a voting civics test (i got 28/33, but i probably should have done better :O)

i think a test with a booklet primer on the information would be valid. something like they do with a driver's license

it shouldn't take a college level of reading or knowledge, but it should cover the basics. someone should be able to read, and speak English. if they can't do that then they probably shouldn't be eligible to be drafted either...

[Veritas]

You need to understand that people who don't have a voice will find somebody to speak for them. And this, sicem dear, is when the Stalins and Hitlers of the world step in.
I was with you until this illogical non-sequitor.

Hitler leveraged German bitterness regarding the Treaty of Versailles, resulting in the German public electing National Socialists to power in September 1930. There is a chasm of difference between a nation chafing under restrictions imposed by an agreement that ended a war that and a group of people chafing under their inability to pass a test. It is non-sequitor to the extreme to attempt to define a relationship between the two.

Stalin came to power after a struggle with Leon Trotsky; he, like Hitler, leveraged a population frustrated by the outcomes of war.

The common denominator in both cases was not a lack of voting rights but rather bitterness or weariness over or of war.

[Beef]

The common denominator in both cases was not a lack of voting rights but rather being longwhorn fans.

Couldn't have said it better, V.

[Half a Hundred]

I was with you until this illogical non-sequitor.

Hitler leveraged German bitterness regarding the Treaty of Versailles, resulting in the German public electing National Socialists to power in September 1930. There is a chasm of difference between a nation chafing under restrictions imposed by an agreement that ended a war that and a group of people chafing under their inability to pass a test. It is non-sequitor to the extreme to attempt to define a relationship between the two.

Stalin came to power after a struggle with Leon Trotsky; he, like Hitler, leveraged a population frustrated by the outcomes of war.

The common denominator in both cases was not a lack of voting rights but rather bitterness or weariness over or of war.

However, I do think a lot of the German post-war zeitgeist was that they themselves were being punished by the other Great Powers of Europe for the actions of their former aristocracy, without having any popular say on the subject. The Weimar Republic didn't help that much, because the former entrenched powers of the Empire were more and more becoming the "democratic" aristocracy once again.

Hitler comes along and tells the German people that all this business wasn't their fault, that it is this corrupt, decadent aristocracy (entrenched by rotten democratic processes) that's the problem, and that all of it was a grand orchestration by the Jewish cabal (which also orchestrated the Versailles Treaty) in order to keep the pure, strong Deutsches Volk from their rightful role as leaders of continental Europe. In that sense, it was somewhat of a populist movement.

Stalin just co-opted the revolution through strongman tactics. He really didn't have any ideology other than gaining more power for himself, so it's somewhat pointless to use him as an example for much of anything. However, he wouldn't have had the opportunity were it not for the revolution.

[Veritas]

However, I do think a lot of the German post-war zeitgeist was that they themselves were being punished by the other Great Powers of Europe for the actions of their former aristocracy, without having any popular say on the subject.
Great post and I fully agree; you make the point better that I did that the rise of Hitler was not directly related to disfranchisement.

[Viking Kitten]

Veritas, I'm pretty sure you understand well enough that I was not talking about the specific set of circumstances under which those two leaders came to power. I am talking about the tendency of powerless people to turn to charismatic psychomaniacs (you pick one) when they are stripped of control and self determination in the political process. (Russians under the czars, Germans after the Treaty of Versailles) It's not illogical at all, it would be a natural and predictable consequence of Sicem's proposal of effectively disenfranchising millions of voters.

[Harry Beanbag]

I was with you until this illogical non-sequitor.

Hitler leveraged German bitterness regarding the Treaty of Versailles, resulting in the German public electing National Socialists to power in September 1930. There is a chasm of difference between a nation chafing under restrictions imposed by an agreement that ended a war that and a group of people chafing under their inability to pass a test. It is non-sequitor to the extreme to attempt to define a relationship between the two.

Stalin came to power after a struggle with Leon Trotsky; he, like Hitler, leveraged a population frustrated by the outcomes of war.

The common denominator in both cases was not a lack of voting rights but rather bitterness or weariness over or of war.


Hmmm. That sounds kind of familiar.

[Half a Hundred]

Great post and I fully agree; you make the point better that I did that the rise of Hitler was not directly related to disfranchisement.

Agree and disagree... while it's not direct disenfranchisement, it certainly is related to it. The NSDAP and SPD both ran on the platform of populism against the established elitist Center Party in the waning years of Weimar Germany, and it was this radicalization of political discourse that led to the German situation inevitably heading in a destabilizing direction. Had there been a greater feeling of enfranchisement among the populace toward the center parties, the splitting of Germany into Socialist and Fascist factions may not have been so definite and unavoidable.

[SicEmBaylor]

32/33.
So let's say I'm a dude who doesn't come from a family that can afford to send me to college until I'm 30. Let's say I'm from a poor family and went to a crappy public school that used outdated textbooks. Let's say I couldn't pass this test, and was not allowed to vote at age 18. Let's say during the following presidential administration, a war got started and the draft was re-instituted. I think you can see where I am going with this.

I've said before that military service would also be a way to earn the right to vote, but I assumed that military service would be voluntary. I'm not totally convinced you should have the same policy for draftees, but I guess I could compromise a little bit and accept that.


Do you not understand that universal suffrage is what gives our country its legitimacy?
We didn't get remotely close to universal suffrage until 1920 at best with the 19th amendment and 1971 at worst with the ratification of the 26th Amendment. Was the United States not legitimate until 1971, 1920, 1865, or are we not legitimate at all because we still don't have true universal suffrage?

The Republic was not designed in such a way as to allow any yahoo idgit to walk into a voting booth.


Sure, some people understand the process better than others, and of course some under-informed people's votes can be manipulated. And most of the time, the ignorant people don't vote anyway. However, their right to do so makes them stakeholders, and thus beholden to the rule of law that is the foundation of civilized society.

The stakeholder point is fair enough, but I doubt there are many ignorant people out there who choose to observe the rule of law simply because they have the theoretical right to vote.


You need to understand that people who don't have a voice will find somebody to speak for them. And this, sicem dear, is when the Stalins and Hitlers of the world step in.

They should have a voice to speak for them. That's the entire point of a Representative Republic. We expect people to find someone who speaks for them, but that doesn't mean they should get everything they want or what they say has any merit. And yes a Stalin and Hitler is always possible, but that's why we have the 2nd Amendment.

[SicEmBaylor]

the Stalins and Hitlers were charismatic, that's part of the problem

that test is a little tough IMO for a voting civics test (i got 28/33, but i probably should have done better :O)

i think a test with a booklet primer on the information would be valid. something like they do with a driver's license

it shouldn't take a college level of reading or knowledge, but it should cover the basics. someone should be able to read, and speak English. if they can't do that then they probably shouldn't be eligible to be drafted either...

Exactly. I'm not talking about a college level exam here. I'm talking about something approaching a test you would have taken in 8th grade civics. I don't find it the least bit unreasonable to expect people to be capable of reading and have at least an 8th grade understanding of basic governmental functions and civil responsibilities.

[SicEmBaylor]

I was with you until this illogical non-sequitor.

Hitler leveraged German bitterness regarding the Treaty of Versailles, resulting in the German public electing National Socialists to power in September 1930. There is a chasm of difference between a nation chafing under restrictions imposed by an agreement that ended a war that and a group of people chafing under their inability to pass a test. It is non-sequitor to the extreme to attempt to define a relationship between the two.

Stalin came to power after a struggle with Leon Trotsky; he, like Hitler, leveraged a population frustrated by the outcomes of war.

The common denominator in both cases was not a lack of voting rights but rather bitterness or weariness over or of war.

That's true, but you aren't discounting the fact that millions of Russian peasants flocked to the Bolshevik banner because they had no personal voice in government, no role in deciding politics, and no power over the Czar.

The Germans lost faith in the Weimar Republic's ability to manage the economic crisis caused by the Treaty of Versailles. The loss of faith in their elected officials is what led to Hitler (who was himself an elected official).

[SicEmBaylor]

Veritas, I'm pretty sure you understand well enough that I was not talking about the specific set of circumstances under which those two leaders came to power. I am talking about the tendency of powerless people to turn to charismatic psychomaniacs (you pick one) when they are stripped of control and self determination in the political process. (Russians under the czars, Germans after the Treaty of Versailles) It's not illogical at all, it would be a natural and predictable consequence of Sicem's proposal of effectively disenfranchising tens of millions of voters.

Fixed.

[Veritas]

That's true, but you aren't discounting the fact that millions of Russian peasants flocked to the Bolshevik banner because they had no personal voice in government, no role in deciding politics, and no power over the Czar.
I don't believe I'm discounting it as I was specifically addressing Stalin's rise to power.

Look, here's my deal: don't invoke Stalin and/or Hitler unless a very clear correlation can be demonstrated between them and whatever you're referencing. For example, don't throw out those names when referencing the theoretical effects of requiring voters to be able to intellectually fog a mirror.

[SicEmBaylor]

I don't believe I'm discounting it as I was specifically addressing Stalin's rise to power.

Look, here's my deal: don't invoke Stalin and/or Hitler unless a very clear correlation can be demonstrated between them and whatever you're referencing. For example, don't throw out those names when referencing the theoretical effects of requiring voters to be able to intellectually fog a mirror.

So, what you're saying is that I'm free to refer to Obama as Stalin and his supporters as modern Bolshevik peasants? ;)

[Half a Hundred]

I'm completely unsure of what anyone's position is anymore. I think y'all both flipped 180 from what you started out as.

Sic em is talking about how the franchise needs to be restricted, then detailing the deleterious effects of an undereducated lower-class when their political voice is stifled. Aren't you pretty much contradicting yourself?

[SicEmBaylor]

I'm completely unsure of what anyone's position is anymore. I think y'all both flipped 180 from what you started out as.

Sic em is talking about how the franchise needs to be restricted, then detailing the deleterious effects of an undereducated lower-class when their political voice is stifled. Aren't you pretty much contradicting yourself?

I was just playing devil's advocate with VK's argument.

[Half a Hundred]

Makes sense. Still, you should go with it, you seemed to be arguing the devil's advocate better than your own position... heh

[SicEmBaylor]

Makes sense. Still, you should go with it, you seemed to be arguing the devil's advocate better than your own position... heh

I've argued that position much more eloquently in the past. I've done it so often that I'm regressing and the repetition has worn me down. ;) I may come up with something better later.

[olevetonahill]

[QUOTE=SicEmBaylor;2504830]I've said before that military service would also be a way to earn the right to vote, but I assumed that military service would be voluntary. I'm not totally convinced you should have the same policy for draftees, but I guess I could compromise a little bit and accept that. ?

So Sic Cause I got Drafted in 68 . I would still have to take yer silly Test ?:rolleyes:

[yermom]

will they let you take it with Crayons? :D

[SicEmBaylor]

[QUOTE=SicEmBaylor;2504830]I've said before that military service would also be a way to earn the right to vote, but I assumed that military service would be voluntary. I'm not totally convinced you should have the same policy for draftees, but I guess I could compromise a little bit and accept that. ?

So Sic Cause I got Drafted in 68 . I would still have to take yer silly Test ?:rolleyes:


I'd give you a personal waiver.

[olevetonahill]

will they let you take it with Crayons? :D

It better be with them Big Fat ones . Them little things break to easy .:D

[olevetonahill]

[QUOTE=olevetonahill;2505239]


I'd give you a personal waiver.

Then it Just lost all Credibility ;)

[Half a Hundred]

[QUOTE=SicEmBaylor;2505253]

Then it Just lost all Credibility ;)

It's just a civics test. You'd be fine.


Now a BAC test, on the other hand.... ;)

[Rogue]

I don't come on here to learn anything, dammit.
Alas, I have again.

VK has a knack for making a point.

[King Crimson]

30, i thought the Sputnik question was a little left-field and the distinction between Plato and Socrates is that of author and character (nonsensical and/or redundant as phrased in the question) unless our would-be citizen has been reading Diogenes Laertius.