Hey, can you pass the US citizenship test???

[a kennedy]

test it here: http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/03/12546953-could-you-pass-the-us-citizenship-test?lite

Good Luck.

[hfojvt]

1. pretty easy test

but I did get one wrong

number of amendments to the constitution

[bluedigger]

15. Same here.

That and the current Chief Justice were the only questions that were changeable, I think.

[AJTheMan]

2. I got an 85%.

Which is fairly mediocre, I would say. I did pass, however.

[brewens]

3. Missed four but passed. It should have only been three.

I didn't read one closely enough. I thought it asked who was President during WWII instead of WWI. It even occurred to me that Truman also was President but wasn't listed. How may amendments and how many members of the House tripped me up. I did know the House was one of two possibilities but guessed wrong. Same with the one that asked which of four states was not an original colony. Two I was not positive about and guessed wrong again.

[TheDebbieDee]

4. I passed - 85/100! Yay! Where do I get my gold star??????

I'm more citizeny than you are..........

ETA:

I missed the President during WWI - I said it was Teddy Roosevelt.

I missed which is not a federal power - I said printing money

I missed year constitution written - I said 1774

[Pilotguy]

5. Eh...two wrong.

[ChazII]

6. 4 must be

the magic number tonight.

[joshcryer]

7. I was 5 for 5 when it stopped working. Honestly though...

...since the citizenship exam is oral I bet it'd be a lot harder.

The multiple choices kind of gave it away, you could use elimination.

[krispos42]

8. One division of my company can

There's a Vietnamese guy there trying to get his citizenship. After he failed a written test, he played the damn CD for hours a day on the boom box. EVERYBODY can pass the damn test in their sleep!

Pity he failed the language portion, but he only speaks English at work, and his accent is so heavy and his vocabulary is limited o that he never advances!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

30. funny

[krispos42]

43. "Name two states that border Canada"

• Washington
  
• Idaho
  
• Montana
  
• North Dakota
  
• Minnesota
  
• Wisconsin
  
• Michigan
  
• Ohio
  
• Pennsylvania
  
• New York
  
• Vermont
  
• New Hampshire
  
• Maine

[Laura PourMeADrink]

49. It's all...I would have never thought Idaho. good one

[krispos42]

55. Or Ohio, for that matter... it's a water border.

[Scootaloo]

9. 100%

Though I did hover over "How many members in the House of Representatives" thing... There was no Depends on census results! answer.

[bluedigger]

13. Because it doesn't.

The number is fixed - the Census is used to divvy them up (amongst other things).

[Scootaloo]

16. Well, thank goodness!

I was afraid I might be smart!

[sakabatou]

17. Unless new states enter the union, right?

[dsc]

19. nope

that would be the Senate. The current size of the house was set in the early 1900's and we added at least two states since then and I think it was four. In any case, 435 voting members with one non voting member for each of DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Somoa, and one other territory whose name escapes me right now.

[sakabatou]

46. So the numbers per state get reshuffled?

[dsc]

47. yep

that is why for example Ohio and New York lost two seats each in the latest census.

[sakabatou]

48. That I know about with today's country

And it will reshuffle if we ever gain new territory/states?

[Spider Jerusalem]

20. Not so much

the number was set at 435 by the Apportionment Act of 1911, which apportioned 433 representatives for the current states of the Union and one additional each for Arizona and New Mexico (which became states in 1912). When Alaska and Hawaii became states each got one representative in addition to the 435 then seated in the House to make the number 437 until reapportionment after the 1960 census returned the total to 435.

435 seems somewhat low for a country of over 300 million people; the UK has at present 646 parliamentary constituencies with a fifth the population, so one member of parliament for, roughly, every hundred thousand people vs one representative for every seven hundred thousand.

[dsc]

22. yeah we do have too few members

only India among Democracies have larger districts and they have over a billion people meaning they would have to have around 1600 people in their legislature to match our size districts. I think having an 801 member body would be sufficient. That would reduce us to about 1 rep to 450,000

[JDPriestly]

23. Too few members is right and then there is the Senate in which California

and other very populous states are way out-represented by tiny states like Rhode Island and Wyoming. It's scandalous. Californians are virtually disenfranchised in so far as the Senate is concerned. That skews the political scene in the entire country because two big liberal states, New York and California, are vastly underrepresented while many of the conservative states with tiny populations are relatively over-represented.

[dsc]

24. well sadly that will never change

it can't even change by constitutional amendment. Only if every state that is currently over represented would agree to give up that over representation can it change. Currently any state that has population under 6 million or so is over represented in the Senate, that would be about 35 or so states. On edit it would be 33. 17 states are under represented while 33 are over represented.

http://exploredia.com/population-of-us-states-2011/

The cutoff point is about 6.1 million making Tennessee the smallest state that gets screwed by the Senate and Missouri the largest state which is a beneficiary. In the current Senate we have 19 seats in the over represented part with 15 GOP seats no independents. Meaning we must have 32 seats in the over represented part with 32 GOP seats and 2 independents in the over represented part.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

31. why can't it change by amendment? that's interesting...I don't know what can be changed

by amendment, and what can not.

But, it does strike me that it would be a great way to diffuse all the partisanship, if there were more
people representing smaller groups

[dsc]

38. The Senate can't be changed because the Constitution says that no state can have its Senate

representation reduced without its consent. Thus even by amendment the Senate can't be changed.

[JDPriestly]

44. California is big enough to divide into two states. They we would have four senators.

I haven't heard anyone seriously suggest it, but it might resolve the problem that we are under-represented in the Senate.

[sarisataka]

53. That is the point of the Senate

It places all of the states on equal footing. California has 2, Wyoming has 2.

The House accounts for population, where California has 53 Rep., equaling Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana (all 1 each), Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maine, Hawaii, Idaho (all 2 each), Nebraska, West Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah (All 3 each), Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi (all 4 each) Iowa and Connecticut (5 each) combined. Oklahoma and Oregon also have 5 Reps each.

So in the HoR It would take 23 of the smallest states to match California's vote.

If we were unicameral and based strictly on population, 9 states (California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Georgia) could dictate to the other 41 as they have 50.26% of the population.

It may not be a perfect system but it seems to insure the party not in power has some say. I would shudder to think if that few states all went 'red' how the country would look after four years.

[JDPriestly]

56. But, as it is, individual voters in California have far too little say in our government.

Actually, we would have more blue senators if California had say at least 4 rather than just 2.

This system is extremely unfair to California voters.

[bluedigger]

21. Just to add to what dsc correctly said...

I think they have a space issue - they don't want to build an addition to the Capitol...

[Laura PourMeADrink]

39. haha...Hey, the new members could be "online voter" and skype their speeches. When

a "in-the-Capitol" member got defeated or quit, then an online voter gets to move in the building. :&gt

[bluedigger]

40. That would inconvenience the lobbyists.

They like having them all in one place.

[dsc]

10. I took it the other time it was posted

I ended up missing two, but it should have been one, my answer slipped on one question.

[bluedigger]

11. Who's keeping score?

Sounds risky...

I got a 95...under an assumed name.

[hfojvt]

18. I did not enter my name at first

then the computer said "please enter your name in the box"

so in the box I wrote

"your name"

just like I was asked to.


There was a Sunday comic strip where one of the characters is taking a test and reads the first question which says "name".

And he thinks to himself. "Name? Name what? Name who?" over several panels.

Then in the next panel, he thinks. "oh, my name, sheesh, get a grip Schuyler."

[Laura PourMeADrink]

32. I like that. It's like when someone says to you "Say you are sorry." and you say

"You are sorry"

[nadine_mn]

12. Missed 2

sigh, I should have done better

[sakabatou]

14. 18 out of 20

[Buns_of_Fire]

25. I'm pleased to announce that "Willard Romney" got a 90.

What? You don't think I'd enter my REAL name on one of these things, do you?

You know... Just in case...

If it weren't almost three in the morning and ol' Willard didn't have a snootful, he might have gotten 95 or 100.

[RandySF]

26. 100%

[alphafemale]

27. I missed one.

And accidentally hit the wrong answer on that one. 95%

[Violet_Crumble]

28. I failed it, but I don't want US citizenship anyway...

I didn't do too bad. I got 12 right and I only knew some of the ones I got right coz I've read the answers here at DU...

[Laura PourMeADrink]

29. 1 wrong. # of Amendments. All you 100% knew that? #impressed. nt

[UTUSN]

34. Me, also. n/t

[1monster]

33. Super easy test. 100%

[Woody Woodpecker]

35. 100%

and I didn't even have to go Wiki any of them up.

Too easy.

Give me a harder challenge.

A real test, maybe?

[boxman15]

36. I got one wrong.

I read "Who was president during World War I?" as "Who was president during World War II?" I picked FDR instead of Wilson.

[whistler162]

37. 1 wrong

I misread the one about what wasn't in the Declaration of Independence as what wasn't in the Constitution and didn't chose the right to arm bears!

[jhasp]

41. 20/20

I had to think about the state not in the original 13. Delaware was first and I knew New York was in there.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. I did, for real.

Where the stakes were high.

[RebelOne]

45. I am not even going to try.

My next-door neighbor was from Russia and I saw the test she was going to have to take for citizenship, and there was no way I could pass. It has been many years since I have been in school.

[vaberella]

50. I had to take the test to become a citizen.

A few of those questions are not normally on the test. Further more, they are NOT multiple choice. You have to know the answers by heart. If I remember correctly the most difficult question on the test I had was to name 13 original signatures on the Declaration of Independence.

I don't know anyone who can name 13 of them.

[Warpy]

51. 100% but I admit one of them was a guess

so I suppose it was an educated guess.

[TheFarseer]

52. 20 out of 20 n/t

[MrSlayer]

54. I got them all but I guessed Vermont on the one question.

Pretty easy otherwise.

[Egalitarian Thug]

57. Easily. n/t

[hifiguy]

58. 19/20. Couldn't remember if it was Vermont or NH

that was an original state.