3 ms·

It seems like any testing regime would lead to a state where people with time and money could afford to take test prep so they'd know what answers to write on t

It seems like any testing regime would lead to a state where people with time and money could afford to take test prep so they'd know what answers to write on the test without actually having to change make their voting consistent with knowledge. That would actually be ideal. That way you'd get smart, driven people voting who in reality thought for themselves. My real worry is that the tests would end up being designed to filter out people of the wrong ideology, thus giving power to the test-creators. The way to avoid this is to test for basic factual questions - who is the prime minister of Israel, who is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, etc. This information is freely available. If you can't be bothered Seems pointless. But I never did get people who were eager to disenfranchise lots of their fellow citizens at the drop of a hat. I never get people who assume universal suffrage is a great thing. People who vote have great power over your life. You wouldn't want to give a pilot who wasn't qualified control of a plane. Why give voters who aren't qualified power to steer the ship of state? Have you ever listened to talk radio before? Does it scare you that those people have so much power over your life? Or to put it more succinctly, would you rather be ruled by the commenters at Hacker News, or the commenters at Digg?

MichaelSalib 16y ago
The way to avoid this is to test for basic factual questions I don't see any reason to believe that the ability to recite pointless facts correlates significantly with good decision making. I know many smart people who make very poor decisions, including in the voting booth. Why give voters who aren't qualified power to steer the ship of state? I think we disagree about what the purpose of voting is. If you think voting is about selecting optimal leadership, then maybe dramatically restricting the franchise is a good idea. But I think voting is about preventing violent conflict and maintaining social stability. People who get to express themselves in the voting booth are (hopefully) less likely to express their frustration by grabbing the nearest minority or outcast and stringing them up from a tree. Or to put it more succinctly, would you rather be ruled by the commenters at Hacker News, or the commenters at Digg? Digg. No question. Societies with representative governments are more stable than societies where a tiny elite make decisions on behalf of everyone. Have you seen the commenters at Digg? Those people are insane! They'd resort to violence in a heartbeat. I believe that suboptimal governments are better than optimal governments engaged in civil wars. Wars tend to kill people (like me) and destroy our stuff. To put it another way: can you point to any model societies that are really great and are governed by a small ruling elite? Because Saudi Arabia and North Korea aren't really blowing me away.
- bokonist 16y ago
  I don't see any reason to believe that the ability to recite pointless facts correlates significantly with good decision making. I know many smart people who make very poor decisions, including in the voting booth. On average, all mental tests tend to correlate with job performance skills. But I think voting is about preventing violent conflict and maintaining social stability. People who get to express themselves in the voting booth are (hopefully) less likely to express their frustration by grabbing the nearest minority or outcast and stringing them up from a tree. If that's the intent, the results have been the exact opposite. Lynching was unheard of in America before the American revolution. All of Africa has been a violent mess since the introduction of universal suffrage. Demagogue politicians exacerbate and fan the flames of ethnic tension. Virulent anti-semitism was rare in Germany before 1870, but decades of politicians vying for power by blaming an outcast group turned anti-semitism into a terrible disease. Democracy universally makes ethnic conflict worse. Read Amy Chua World on Fire. To put it another way: can you point to any model societies that are really great and are governed by a small ruling elite? America before the era of Jacksonian democracy ( 1620 to 1820's). Victorian Britain. Bourbon Naples. Pre-civil war Liberia. Belgian Congo (not to be confused with the Congo Free State, which was a disaster). Rhodesia. Singapore. Post-war Japan (basically ruled by MacArthur as dictator). Egypt under Evelyn Baring. Mexico under Porfirio Díaz. The fallacy that too many people make is that they look at the world and say, "hey, countries that are democracy have a better polity and quality life than non-democracies. Ergo, democracy is good." But this does not tell us if democracy is good, or if democracy is actually a poison. If I give twenty people a poison, only the strongest will be able to withstand it and keep drinking it. The weak fall to the ground sick, and therefore stop drinking the poison. A doctor who arrives on the scene late might see the healthy people drinking the poison, and think the poison is actually good. But that is not the case. If you look at historical transitions from aristocracy/monarchy to democracy, you'll see that in the vast majority of cases introducing universal suffrage elections has inflamed ethnic tensions and lead to corruption, jingoism, and violence.
  - MichaelSalib 16y ago
    On average, all mental tests tend to correlate with job performance skills. This seems obviously false. A mental test that requires you to list top performing baseball players will not correlate well with job performance for most jobs. If that's the intent, the results have been the exact opposite. Can you point to any papers published in reputable journals that make that point? Its not that I don't trust you, being some random guy on the internet, but there are people who study history and government structure for a living and I'd think they might have more experience with this sort of thing. Lynching was unheard of in America before the American revolution. Wow. I don't even know what to do with a historical argument this absurd. Virulent anti-semitism was rare in Germany before 1870 This will come as a great surprise to Martin Luther. Demagogue politicians exacerbate and fan the flames of ethnic tension. But leaders in autocracies do the exact same thing as well. So it seems like how widespread the franchise was might not be the relevant variable. Egypt under Evelyn Baring. Mexico under Porfirio Díaz. Aren't these autocrats? Do you have any model societies where a small fraction of the population votes instead? Read Amy Chua World on Fire. Actually, I have read that book and I think you're misrepresenting Chua's thesis. Her claim was not the idea that democracy lead to political demagogues which lead to mass violence. Rather it was the combination of demagogues and the presence of market dominant ethnic minorities combined that lead to mass violence. I mean, one of her main examples is Rwanda, which was a dictatorship at the time. Not exactly a haven for democracy, eh? If you look at historical transitions from aristocracy/monarchy to democracy, you'll see that in the vast majority of cases introducing universal suffrage elections has inflamed ethnic tensions and lead to corruption, jingoism, and violence. Um, I might believe that if you could point me to an academic citation. I will agree with you on this: rapid introduction of voting into previously autocratic societies often ends poorly. I think the takeaway there is that democracy involves a lot more than just voting: you need to build the rule of law and emplace a whole set of norms about how power is shared amongst dissenting groups. If you ignore all that and just impose elections immediately, then yeah, things can go very badly.

MichaelSalib 16y ago

The way to avoid this is to test for basic factual questions I don't see any reason to believe that the ability to recite pointless facts correlates significantly with good decision making. I know many smart people who make very poor decisions, including in the voting booth. Why give voters who aren't qualified power to steer the ship of state? I think we disagree about what the purpose of voting is. If you think voting is about selecting optimal leadership, then maybe dramatically restricting the franchise is a good idea. But I think voting is about preventing violent conflict and maintaining social stability. People who get to express themselves in the voting booth are (hopefully) less likely to express their frustration by grabbing the nearest minority or outcast and stringing them up from a tree. Or to put it more succinctly, would you rather be ruled by the commenters at Hacker News, or the commenters at Digg? Digg. No question. Societies with representative governments are more stable than societies where a tiny elite make decisions on behalf of everyone. Have you seen the commenters at Digg? Those people are insane! They'd resort to violence in a heartbeat. I believe that suboptimal governments are better than optimal governments engaged in civil wars. Wars tend to kill people (like me) and destroy our stuff. To put it another way: can you point to any model societies that are really great and are governed by a small ruling elite? Because Saudi Arabia and North Korea aren't really blowing me away.

bokonist 16y ago
I don't see any reason to believe that the ability to recite pointless facts correlates significantly with good decision making. I know many smart people who make very poor decisions, including in the voting booth. On average, all mental tests tend to correlate with job performance skills. But I think voting is about preventing violent conflict and maintaining social stability. People who get to express themselves in the voting booth are (hopefully) less likely to express their frustration by grabbing the nearest minority or outcast and stringing them up from a tree. If that's the intent, the results have been the exact opposite. Lynching was unheard of in America before the American revolution. All of Africa has been a violent mess since the introduction of universal suffrage. Demagogue politicians exacerbate and fan the flames of ethnic tension. Virulent anti-semitism was rare in Germany before 1870, but decades of politicians vying for power by blaming an outcast group turned anti-semitism into a terrible disease. Democracy universally makes ethnic conflict worse. Read Amy Chua World on Fire. To put it another way: can you point to any model societies that are really great and are governed by a small ruling elite? America before the era of Jacksonian democracy ( 1620 to 1820's). Victorian Britain. Bourbon Naples. Pre-civil war Liberia. Belgian Congo (not to be confused with the Congo Free State, which was a disaster). Rhodesia. Singapore. Post-war Japan (basically ruled by MacArthur as dictator). Egypt under Evelyn Baring. Mexico under Porfirio Díaz. The fallacy that too many people make is that they look at the world and say, "hey, countries that are democracy have a better polity and quality life than non-democracies. Ergo, democracy is good." But this does not tell us if democracy is good, or if democracy is actually a poison. If I give twenty people a poison, only the strongest will be able to withstand it and keep drinking it. The weak fall to the ground sick, and therefore stop drinking the poison. A doctor who arrives on the scene late might see the healthy people drinking the poison, and think the poison is actually good. But that is not the case. If you look at historical transitions from aristocracy/monarchy to democracy, you'll see that in the vast majority of cases introducing universal suffrage elections has inflamed ethnic tensions and lead to corruption, jingoism, and violence.
- MichaelSalib 16y ago
  On average, all mental tests tend to correlate with job performance skills. This seems obviously false. A mental test that requires you to list top performing baseball players will not correlate well with job performance for most jobs. If that's the intent, the results have been the exact opposite. Can you point to any papers published in reputable journals that make that point? Its not that I don't trust you, being some random guy on the internet, but there are people who study history and government structure for a living and I'd think they might have more experience with this sort of thing. Lynching was unheard of in America before the American revolution. Wow. I don't even know what to do with a historical argument this absurd. Virulent anti-semitism was rare in Germany before 1870 This will come as a great surprise to Martin Luther. Demagogue politicians exacerbate and fan the flames of ethnic tension. But leaders in autocracies do the exact same thing as well. So it seems like how widespread the franchise was might not be the relevant variable. Egypt under Evelyn Baring. Mexico under Porfirio Díaz. Aren't these autocrats? Do you have any model societies where a small fraction of the population votes instead? Read Amy Chua World on Fire. Actually, I have read that book and I think you're misrepresenting Chua's thesis. Her claim was not the idea that democracy lead to political demagogues which lead to mass violence. Rather it was the combination of demagogues and the presence of market dominant ethnic minorities combined that lead to mass violence. I mean, one of her main examples is Rwanda, which was a dictatorship at the time. Not exactly a haven for democracy, eh? If you look at historical transitions from aristocracy/monarchy to democracy, you'll see that in the vast majority of cases introducing universal suffrage elections has inflamed ethnic tensions and lead to corruption, jingoism, and violence. Um, I might believe that if you could point me to an academic citation. I will agree with you on this: rapid introduction of voting into previously autocratic societies often ends poorly. I think the takeaway there is that democracy involves a lot more than just voting: you need to build the rule of law and emplace a whole set of norms about how power is shared amongst dissenting groups. If you ignore all that and just impose elections immediately, then yeah, things can go very badly.