3 ms·
The US was never an epistocracy. While some states did technically have a "literacy" test, it was a literacy test in name only; and designed specifically to dis
by gizmo686 10y ago
The US was never an epistocracy. While some states did technically have a "literacy" test, it was a literacy test in name only; and designed specifically to disenfranchise black voters. Using that as evidence that epistocracy is bad is like using the present day voter verification attempts as evidence that the concept of secure voting is bad.
- jdavis703 10y agoWhen I was taking security classes one of the things they kept mentioning is that it's possible to increase security so much your users grow frustrated and wind up installing backdoors for themselves. For example there's a long security review before installing new software, so someone brings in their own device with this software. They're not a hostile attacker, yet have opened your infrastructure up to new attack vectors. The same is true for voting. The more secure you make it the less people will vote. The less people vote the less they trust the system. This then winds up undermining the very thing you were trying to protect. Edit: I'm not arguing for zero security. I'm arguing that some thought goes into what security procedures you implement on voting, and how that enfranchises or disenfranchises people.