4 ms·

Who would write the questions? Who would determine who is/isn't fit to vote? 1. If it's the ruling party, then there's no way they would write unbiased questio

Who would write the questions? Who would determine who is/isn't fit to vote? 1. If it's the ruling party, then there's no way they would write unbiased questions. 2. If it's the opposition party, then there's no way they would write unbiased questions. 3. If it's a combination of the two, then no questions would get written in time. 4. If it's a third party, then who vets/selects them, and who can be a part of it? GOTO 1 > But the question I am really asking is, would it be so bad if the number of eligitable voters were smaller, but they were more informed? That's incredibly dangerous. Who decides who is 'informed' and not? I bet most (all?) voters think they are informed.

tomjen3 8y ago
The questions don't even have to be unbiased, they just have to be something you would know only if you have actually looked into it. They aren't meant to ensure that you have equally read all sides, just that you have done some research. Each question would be assigned some score, and you would need a certain minimum to pass. As long as everybody is given the same test, and that the questions are objective, the same determination would be made for everybody, no matter what their political leanings were, so in a sense whatever knowledge you require your opponents to know, you would also your side to know. Even if it is so blatantly biased that every single question is a positive statement about Hillary (say), wouldn't you want somebody voting against her to do so on an informed basis, and so as a minimum they should know her platforms/positions?
- craftyguy 8y ago
  The bias I am referring to is not favoring one candidate over another in the wording of the questions, but rather to disqualify voters who may not vote the same way as you. An example might be "what did candidate XYZ say 3 years ago on this random radio talk show", and only die-hard supporters would be able to answer it correctly. (There are likely much better examples of what I am trying to convey here, but my caffeine level is dangerously low)

tomjen3 8y ago

The questions don't even have to be unbiased, they just have to be something you would know only if you have actually looked into it. They aren't meant to ensure that you have equally read all sides, just that you have done some research. Each question would be assigned some score, and you would need a certain minimum to pass. As long as everybody is given the same test, and that the questions are objective, the same determination would be made for everybody, no matter what their political leanings were, so in a sense whatever knowledge you require your opponents to know, you would also your side to know. Even if it is so blatantly biased that every single question is a positive statement about Hillary (say), wouldn't you want somebody voting against her to do so on an informed basis, and so as a minimum they should know her platforms/positions?

craftyguy 8y ago
The bias I am referring to is not favoring one candidate over another in the wording of the questions, but rather to disqualify voters who may not vote the same way as you. An example might be "what did candidate XYZ say 3 years ago on this random radio talk show", and only die-hard supporters would be able to answer it correctly. (There are likely much better examples of what I am trying to convey here, but my caffeine level is dangerously low)