Having people pass an exam before voting

[theprestige]

ThePrestige, that's actually how the current system works. Please take a little more time investigating politics before you post here.

Exactly my point.

What's wrong with the current system, exactly? Specifically, what's wrong with a system of political participation where each participant decides for themselves on what to base their participation?

 

[Prometheus]

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.

Data is certainly necessary, but also not sufficient. And it's very easily corrupted and misused with undesirable results. Any increase in available data needs to go hand-in-hand with efforts to improve the public's ability and inclination to review that data and form useful judgements based on it. And yes, I'm aware that that's one of the main reasons for this forum. That's why I'm here.

 

[quadraginta]

Data is certainly necessary, but also not sufficient. And it's very easily corrupted and misused with undesirable results. Any increase in available data needs to go hand-in-hand with efforts to improve the public's ability and inclination to review that data and form useful judgements based on it. And yes, I'm aware that that's one of the main reasons for this forum. That's why I'm here.

Okay.

For some reason your phrasing seems to me to suggest that you feel some disagreement with my comments, but I am unable to discern what that may be.

Perhaps I'm not appreciating your post properly, or not explaining myself well.

Do you feel that any data developed from testing of candidates would be completely without value? Are you suggesting that there would be significant negative aspects to such testing?

I can think of some of the latter, mostly similar or identical to the problems history has demonstrated with voter testing, but I still think the idea has enough merit to deserve consideration

Especially by comparison to voter testing, which is what prompted my contribution to begin with.

 

[Beerina]

How about if you get money from the government, you are not allowed to vote? And yes, that includes "corporate welfare" and "rent-seeking".

 

[Prometheus]

Okay.

For some reason your phrasing seems to me to suggest that you feel some disagreement with my comments, but I am unable to discern what that may be.

Perhaps I'm not appreciating your post properly, or not explaining myself well.

Do you feel that any data developed from testing of candidates would be completely without value? Are you suggesting that there would be significant negative aspects to such testing?

I can think of some of the latter, mostly similar or identical to the problems history has demonstrated with voter testing, but I still think the idea has enough merit to deserve consideration

Especially by comparison to voter testing, which is what prompted my contribution to begin with.

No, I agree that such data could be quite useful, if it came hand-in-hand with an increase in people's abiliity to judge and utilize data. Another pretty big qualification would have to be some reliable, consistent, and secure method of collecting and maintaining the data. Just the data by itself, I think would be nearly useless at best, and at worst, somewhat detrimental.

 

[Prometheus]

How about if you get money from the government, you are not allowed to vote? And yes, that includes "corporate welfare" and "rent-seeking".

Why limit it to those who get money from the government? Why not disenfranchise everyone who gets protection or services or useful infrastructure from the government as well? Heck, let's take the vote away from everyone who get's government from the Government!

 

[quadraginta]

No, I agree that such data could be quite useful, if it came hand-in-hand with an increase in people's abiliity to judge and utilize data. Another pretty big qualification would have to be some reliable, consistent, and secure method of collecting and maintaining the data. Just the data by itself, I think would be nearly useless at best, and at worst, somewhat detrimental.

Do you feel this way about data in general, or just as applied to this subject ... potential political candidates?

There's lots of data collection going on without a concurrent "increase in people's abiliity to judge and utilize". I don't think that has prevented any of us from taking advantage of it. As far as candidates are concerned we use their speeches, news reports, bios, etc. for exactly that purpose, an effort to evaluate their worthiness of our support. Tests would just be a more structured extension of the same thing we do already.

 

[Prometheus]

Do you feel this way about data in general, or just as applied to this subject ... potential political candidates?

There's lots of data collection going on without a concurrent "increase in people's abiliity to judge and utilize". I don't think that has prevented any of us from taking advantage of it. As far as candidates are concerned we use their speeches, news reports, bios, etc. for exactly that purpose, an effort to evaluate their worthiness of our support. Tests would just be a more structured extension of the same thing we do already.

To some degree, I feel that way about data in general, though in most situations an excess of data is unlikely to be harmful even if it's not helpful. However, I feel much much more strongly any time data is being collected via high-stakes tests, especially when that data will be used to make decisions about people's livelihoods, and most especially when there are guaranteed to be substantial rewards for anyone who successfully manipulates or misrepresents that data.

Data is a necessary but insufficient component of any working democracy. But it pales in significance next to the necessity of a well-educated populace that's actually capable of using data to make informed and rational choices in it's own best interests, and an electoral system that allows such choices to be made.

I agree that such tests would just be a more structured extension of what we do already. The problem, as I see it, is that what we do already is not well thought out or effective.

 

[quadraginta]

To some degree, I feel that way about data in general, though in most situations an excess of data is unlikely to be harmful even if it's not helpful. However, I feel much much more strongly any time data is being collected via high-stakes tests, especially when that data will be used to make decisions about people's livelihoods, and most especially when there are guaranteed to be substantial rewards for anyone who successfully manipulates or misrepresents that data.

Data is a necessary but insufficient component of any working democracy. But it pales in significance next to the necessity of a well-educated populace that's actually capable of using data to make informed and rational choices in it's own best interests, and an electoral system that allows such choices to be made.

I agree that such tests would just be a more structured extension of what we do already. The problem, as I see it, is that what we do already is not well thought out or effective.

I suspect there is very little real difference in our respective opinions on this subject.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Starship Troopers (the Heinlein book, not the joke of a movie) has a interesting take on this. Highly recommended.

 

[Thunder]

if you require them to pay taxes, then they have the right to vote. its that simple.

 

[I Ratant]

There only needs to be one test subject and that is the US Constitution. Do you and the candidates know and understand the Constitution if you don't then you don't deserve to decide the future direction of the country in any capacity period. The only religious question needs to be "what is the separation of Church and State"? Any answer outside of "the government shall favor no religion" you fail. As for grading if you get one question wrong you FAIL better luck next time the Constitution isn't that damn hard to understand. If people actually knew what the Constitution said we wouldn't have the "Patriot act" or "knock and walk" warrants.

.
Essay answers would have too many "hanging chads" in the hands/biases of the answer graders.
A living person, with an ability to sign his/her name on the voting list is about as difficult as the requirement can be, for real fairness.
The really strange voters won't have any particular effect on any election.

 

[I Ratant]

if you require them to pay taxes, then they have the right to vote. its that simple.

.
That's the poll tax.
It has a great history here in keeping the voters white.

 

[Ladewig]

.
That's the poll tax.
It has a great history here in keeping the voters white.

I think Parky was talking about income tax rather than poll taxes.

 

[Thunder]

I think Parky was talking about income tax rather than poll taxes.

yup

 

[casebro]

How about instead of a knowledge-based qualification, we use a personal experience qualification? Military service, or extended experience in other service organisation? Peace Corps, etc? Point would be to make people think like members of a group, rather than voting for what is best for them as individuals.

Hmm, thinking while I type. 12 years is school ought to do that, yet we end up with gangs, members of which would rather be gang members than members of the bigger society. Hmm, our schools need to change. Along with the other major role example, TV. Liberals would love it.

 

[Thunder]

i believe that our forefathers felt that the right to vote was an inalienable right. i tend to agree.

 

[Trakar]

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?

Well, as stated, the first purpose of the tests would be to assure that the candidates meet minimal standards of basic intelligence, mental and emotional balance/stability, physical condition, etc.,. After that its a matter of whether or not these issues matter to the voters, to many it may not matter at all, on the other hand, I think many people would find such information important in their candidate selection process.

 

[Trakar]

How about if you get money from the government, you are not allowed to vote? And yes, that includes "corporate welfare" and "rent-seeking".

Exactly who would be in this proposed voting population?

 

[Trakar]

if you require them to pay taxes, then they have the right to vote. its that simple.

I would think that, at least ethically, it goes much further than this. If there are laws or actions which significantly impact any individuals then those individuals should have some representation in the consideration and enactment of those laws and actions. Not that this representation should necessarily extend to "voting" rights, but definitely representation.