It seems to me that the logic of this argument opens the door to the related idea that the more you "produce", the more your vote should be worth. I think that America is overly plutocratic as is...I'd hate to see that tendency increase. All people have a basic and equal right to participate in their own governance. Period.

"this includes mandatory non-permanent sterilization for both sexes, while on welfare. I'm not paying for them to have children"

As for forced sterilization (yes, even if temporary), I find that disturbing in the extreme. We all, as taxpayers, pay for things we don't like. I'd rather not pay for corporate tax breaks or anti-missile systems. The proper response for people having children on welfare is to reform welfare and make sure we in no way reward those who choose to continue to have children, not to take away their right to do so. I think that one falls under "pursuit of happiness" ;)

~monk d4vis
#!/usr/bin/fnord

The civics test wouldn't be a bad idea, except now days, I don't that enough people could
actually pass the test, even if you set the minimum score at 70%. If you don't believe that,
watch the "Jaywalking" part of the Late Show with Jay Leno. He asks people some very simple
questions, and they fail horribly. It boils down to the simple fact that a good majority of
do not care anymore. Please understand that this is merely my opinion, because there are a lot
of people who do care to do their civic duty, and they try to make an informed and rational decision.

TStanley
There can be only one!

While I'm not about to contest either that the average American isn't wildly ignorant (either in general or as it relates to government), or that apathy isn't rampant (how could I with only 50% voter turnout?), in fairness, Jaywalking can't be construed as a measure of the intelligence of much more than the most vacant minded people that Jay could find roaming the streets on any given day. If you'll notice, they'll generally show clips with the backdrop ranging from broad daylight to darkness within the same Jaywalking session; that's a lot of editing down to get only the "best" idiots. And they do play only the best idiots with only the stupidest questions. Case in point: once they did a session with questions about something moderately intelligent (names of Canadian provinces & their capital cities). I'm probably not going to win any points for I.Q. here, but I don't know what the capital city of most Canadian provinces / territories is offhand. Consequently, I did about as well as the Jaywalking contestants did. I didn't find that session very funny. The point I'm trying to make here is that lowest common denominator entertainment like Jaywalking, Dumb and Dumber, etc., is only funny because it allows you to revel in your "superior intelligence", just as Jerry Springer and his ilk are popular because it makes the, shall we say, "less elegant" aspects of our society feel like their lives aren't that bad after all. When Jay's questions are reasonable and you still can't do any better than the fools you're supposed to be mocking, that's when you need to worry.

And just as you end a sub print "0 but true\n"; so that it'll eval correctly, I'll end this post by again invoking, "I do agree with you, but Jaywalking is a bad example".

Oh, and I trust that calling Leno's program "The Late Show" is a subtle jab at the reader's intelligence, as his is "The Tonight Show". :)

And no, I don't own 27 pairs of sweatpants.

The problem with a civics test is that there were "civics" tests in some areas of the south to keep blacks from voting.
You'd have to fix the schools before this could even be attempted.
And yes, some people's lack of knowledge appalls me.
Anecdote: "That looks like something Jacqueline Kennedy would of worn"
"Who's she?"
It devolved from there.

Well, who is Jacqueline Kennedy? :)

To their credit though, knowing who Jacqueline Kennedy is is less of a civics thing and more of a (ducking, knowing this may not be popular) history factiod.

And no, I don't own 27 pairs of sweatpants.

While I completely agree that all citizens should have a good knowledge of the workings of their government, to be realistic in an age when millions of Americans (and Canadians I'll admit) are functionally illiterate, do they really need to know (Warning: stupid example meant to offend the fewest readers possible, else I would have mentioned gun control) the text of the constitution to know they don't want their neighbours collecting live WWII munitions in their basement?

I don't see why a "civics" test needs to be about the test of the constitution or even about how the government works at all. It could be stuff like¹ "Where does the Republican Party stand on taxation?" "What party is Harry Browne?" "Which party wants to extend the Clean Air Act to cover cow flatulence?"

A coworker (a Libertarian, for reference), suggests that the first thing he'd like to see is: on the ballot, no parties are listed. You'd just have the names, and you'd just have to know who the people you wanted to vote for were. It sounds like a reasonable first step to me.

¹ I'm just pulling these examples out of my... head. yeah, out of my head.