Having people pass an exam before voting

Actually, I was aware of that little quirk about Washington D.C., and the permanent resident thing doesn't surprise me at all.

To me, this is where the idea falls down. You're effectively creating an underclass of people who get no say in how their country is run but are expected to keep paying for it. How long will that system last before you start seeing violence over it? You're taking the Freeman on the Land nonsense and making it a reality for a chunk of the population. The whole notion of somehow testing voters is a fascist fantasy. If people are genuinely concerned about voters being well-informed, better education is the key.
 
Literacy tests:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test

As it was related to me, voters were required (among other things) to be able to read a generally-published public periodical. White voters were handed the local newspaper. Black voters were given a Chinese newspaper, which technically fit the requirements. The anecdotal story is that one black voter said, "I can't read the text, but I can make out the headline: this (N-word) isn't voting."

Beanbag
 
I think anyone who puts boots on their dog's paws should be automatically disqualified.
 
mist said:
Some time ago, during our voting period, I saw some streetinterviews where people were asked what political party they were going to vote for and why. It turned out many people didn't have a clue what plans their favourite political party actually had.

Although I don't have scientific data on this, I suspect many people make an uninformed decision when voting. They're either only aware of their favourite's standpoints (and not the standpoints of their other choices), or simply vote on someone because they they saw them on tv, heard a speech, etc.

Recently something occured to me. What if we could force all votees to make an informed decision by having them pass a multiple choice test.

What do you think?

  1. Is this plan remotely feasible, and
  2. Do you think, if it was somehow implemented, it would improve the leadership (better political leaders are picked, and they try harder to get actual results)?
Click to expand...

Used to have that in the old South. The most popular version (that I heard in my misspent youth) of a joke on the topic was: So this (Black guy)goes up to vote and the clerk of the court hands him a Chinese (Yiddish) newspaper and tells him he has to show he can read - all he has to do is read the main headline in the paper. He looks at the paper awhile, turns it upside down and right-side left and then backwards, looks up at the clerk and says "Boss, this here headline says ain't no (Blacks) gonna be voting in this here election!":mad:

Sorry Beanbag - responded immediatley on seeing the OP. Hard to think of testing woters without remembering it.
 
Last edited:
Beanbag said:
As it was related to me, voters were required (among other things) to be able to read a generally-published public periodical. White voters were handed the local newspaper. Black voters were given a Chinese newspaper, which technically fit the requirements. The anecdotal story is that one black voter said, "I can't read the text, but I can make out the headline: this (N-word) isn't voting."

Beanbag
Click to expand...

Australia used a similar test to enforce the White Australia Policy. To exclude non-white British subjects the test could be given in any European language at the official's discretion.
 
mist said:
Some time ago, during our voting period, I saw some streetinterviews where people were asked what political party they were going to vote for and why. It turned out many people didn't have a clue what plans their favourite political party actually had.

Although I don't have scientific data on this, I suspect many people make an uninformed decision when voting. They're either only aware of their favourite's standpoints (and not the standpoints of their other choices), or simply vote on someone because they they saw them on tv, heard a speech, etc.
Click to expand...

The thing about those street interview things is that they only show the people who got something wrong so we can all laugh at them. I do suspect many people make uninformed decisions, but not to the degree or in the numbers a street interview compilation on you tube would suggest.

I remember seeing one of those where this foreign dude asked people to point out Iraq on a map and the map was all wrong. Of course he got some people that either didn't notice or know any better, but didn't show any who got it right. I wondered how many people he had to ask to get the "look how stupid Americans are" results he wanted.

In any case it's not terribly convincing there's even a problem.
 
It's been my general experience that those who pretty uniformed are also those that tend to not vote.
 
rjh01 said:
Also in Australia we have "compulsory voting". So we have gone the other way.
Click to expand...
That's the point I was going to make. I'd rather a system that included everyone than one which was designed to exclude people who couldn't pass an exam.
 
The stupid thing is that there is no rule that says you must cast a valid vote. It is 100% legal to write "informal vote" on the paper and then put it in the box.

It is illegal though to ask people to vote informal.
 
I've got an idea: why not let each citizen decide for themselves how much or how little they should care about the political process, and on what terms to base their participation?
 
theprestige said:
I've got an idea: why not let each citizen decide for themselves how much or how little they should care about the political process, and on what terms to base their participation?
Click to expand...

ThePrestige, that's actually how the current system works. Please take a little more time investigating politics before you post here. :)
 
geni said:
It's been tried in the US. Was outlawed by the Voting Rights Act.
Click to expand...

IIRC this was used as a way to discriminate against blacks.

Most former slaves were illiterate because it was actually illegal to educate a slave (IIRC).

Then you had segregated schools. Even today, blacks tend to score lower on average on standardized tests, so you might find racial disparities in a "voter qualification test."

In short, it would open up multiple cans of worms.
 
The problem is not that voters are uninformed. It's that most people are. Instead of trying to keep the uneducated out of the polling booths, why not just do a better job of educating everyone?

Of course, this is far easier said than done, but it's hardly impossible. We need a way to aim a big chunk of the brainpower of the scientific research community at the problem of how to more effectively educate people, and then implement their findings without too much political interference.

A big problem with that idea, though, is that Democracy and top-down decision making don't play together all that well. So we need a grass-roots method of ensuring that education is taken more seriously and approached more as a scientific question rather than a political football. Instead of only allowing educated people into the polling booths, we should figure out a way that educated people will tend to be more politically successful (ie. they'll tend to exert more influence over the ways the government is able to shape their lives).

I think one way to do this might be to start treating elections less like sports tournaments and more like scientific measurements of the collective will of the population. A Condorcet Voting system would be nice. That, plus maybe some more variety in the types of school that are available to choose from, would go a long way toward solving the problem as it would apply a sort of Darwinian logic from the bottom up. Better schools would evolve as their graduates would be more politically effective.

Or maybe I've just had too much holiday egg nog.
 
How about, we test the candidates instead of the voters. Mental, physical, emotional, intelligence, a full battery. Set of minimum standards and then all results are made public.
 
TShaitanaku said:
How about, we test the candidates instead of the voters. Mental, physical, emotional, intelligence, a full battery. Set of minimum standards and then all results are made public.
Click to expand...


This.

Testing voters is like band-aiding the well when it's the bucket that leaks. The real key to representative democracy is the representatives.

I've often wondered how the average Congressman would do on the same test naturalized citizens are required to take.
 
Last edited:
How competent do you think the average citizen is to look at such test scores and determine how they translate into the likelihood of the candidates representing them as they would like?
 
Prometheus said:
How competent do you think the average citizen is to look at such test scores and determine how they translate into the likelihood of the candidates representing them as they would like?
Click to expand...


Probably not any more competent than they have proven to be in the many other areas where general judgments are made without reviewing the available data. That's one of the most popular topics on this forum. Maybe even the reason for this forum.

The difference is that there would be data available to review.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom