> only 60% of Americans had some idea of who Snowden was
It's things like this and people who believe the moon landing was faked that convinced me universal suffrage isn't a good thing, and we need some sort of poll test to make sure people are educated on issues before voting. I realize the US has a bad history with "literacy" tests, but it's clear that most people have no business voting.
Who designs the test?
I was going to ask the same thing.
"The issues" vary between people. How many do you include? Are they just the basic stuff the news covers?
Do you need to know federal, state, and local issues?
If you vote in a federal election, do you need to know issues in different parts of the country?
Wouldn't the test show the biases of the test makers?
Parties write the test together and it must have x% approval from both parties in order to pass and be amended in the future. It is short and simple, covering only basic topics at the federal level that are relevant to the whole population regardless of location. E.g. What person currently holds position A, who was the first B, what is the purpose department C, etc. These can be multiple choice with fairly clear answers. Test would be released 1 year before each election, can be re-taken as many times as you'd like, and you need y% to pass. This seems like it would be a good start that would weed out people who are completely uninformed and unwilling to do the bare minimum to vote.
It's comments like this that convince me most programmers are arogant douchebags. Just because someone has a weird idea about an event that had almost no direct affect on the general population doesn't mean we should remove those peoples ability to have a choice in matters which will effect them.
Knowing more than someone else does not make you morally superior or give you more of a right to have a say in your own fate.
If that were the case we would give babies, kids and teenagers the right to vote. Kids would always vote in a superhero or ice cream. And chocolate would win in a landslide.
We only allow those of a certain age to vote because they are able to understand and weigh the issues fairly.
We only allow those of a certain age to be juriors for that reason.
> We only allow those of a certain age to vote because they are able to understand and weigh the issues fairly.
Yes, but we draw a simple, arbitrary rule at a fixed age because everyone grows older, so it isn't manipulable by anyone who is motivated to do so.
If the vote permission line is drawn by more complex means that gives a different answer for different people, it becomes a primary target for manipulation, abuse, and group selectivity.
For example if it was based on IQ tests or even general knowledge tests, it is already well understood that these are heavily biased tests which test for social background, culture and upbringing, rather than general intelligence.
If there's going to be a voter test, it needs to be extremely robust, something just about everyone has confidence in to be fair and appropriate.
Maturity is different than intelligence.
Sorry but no - universal suffrage has been proven historically to be far less flawed than any of the other suffrage limits we've ever had - giving everyone, including the idiots and the deplorables, a voice lets us see what our society is actually made of and might just make[1] education a bigger priority in the US budget.
1. Future tense because right now the US doesn't have 1 person 1 vote equivalence for most elections.
That's exactly the argument those who implemented those maligned poll tests made. They were made to keep the wrong people from voting on the basis they didn't know what was best.
That's why they're a bad idea and should not return.
I sympathize with the frustration, but the tests themselves will just be another attack vector for voter suppression (history proves this).
Probably better off spending resources on improving education and political awareness.
I personally think that if we aren’t going to let someone vote then we shouldn’t ask them to pay tax either.
>I personally think that if we aren’t going to let someone vote then we shouldn’t ask them to pay tax either.
Agreed.
Conversely I believe that people who haven't paid tax in a reasonable amount of years, through either not generating it in the first place, avoision or being a net beneficiary of state aid shouldn't be offered a vote.
>we need some sort of poll test to make sure people are educated on issues before voting
We've decided to go the opposite direction. The US media, celebrities, big companies, etc. have all decided that a huge low-information voter turnout > smaller but better informed voter turnout.
Indeed, apparently democracy is better when everyone participates, regardless of whether a vast amount of those people have the slightest iota of what they're participating about.
> we need some sort of poll test to make sure people are educated on issues before voting
In principle, that's a great idea. I mean, we do have to take driving tests before we are allowed to operate dangerous machinery. We should be required to take tests before we are allowed to affect the lives of millions of people.
You can have a similar argument for parenthood. Require classes before people are allowed to bring another human into their care. Nurses have to, why not parents?
The problem with that is that these tests/lectures are defined by other humans. This shifts an enormous amount of power into the hands of a few. Next thing you know, you now have a handpicked elite eligible to vote. The US has historically used this mechanism for segregation.
Having universal suffrage (which is not yet very universal in a few countries, US included) at least allows the average to smooth out outliers. It does create perverse incentives towards not allowing the population to get TOO literate, otherwise they will be educated enough to see through all the BS.
Collectively, we need to focus on improving education for everyone and fighting disinformation. World War 3 has already begun - except it's using words, not weapons.
> these tests/lectures are defined by other humans
Are driving tests not designed by other humans? Drivers test writer could already design the tests in such a way that would have them favour certain groups. They ensure a minimum level of competency, which seems reasonable to expect from those who are voting or raising children.
> Next thing you know, you now have a handpicked elite eligible to vote
This seems like the slippery slope fallacy.
> not yet very universal in a few countries, US included
Who isn't allowed to vote?
>we need some sort of poll test to make sure people are educated on issues before voting.
Okay, now start thinking about what happens when the political party you like least takes power and starts rewriting the poll test questions to advantage themselves. Then perhaps you'll see why this would be a catastrophically bad policy.
Australia's citizenship test used to (perhaps still does) ask "What was Donald Bradman's batting average?"
A not-so-subtly hidden and totally racist/anglophile question, designed to weed out people/cultures who don't historically follow England vs Australia cricket and know it's "legends". Upper middle class middle aged Englishman? Welcome in sir! Your skin isn't pure white except for the 4 days of summer it turns lobster colour? Well you're not "a good cultural fit" here, sorry.
History proves that anything less than universal suffrage, even if ostensibly for the "right reasons" will be abused.
On the grander scheme, any avenue for political groups to obtain or retain power will be abused. This is why we don't require licenses for people to have children, because the system will be abused in order to ensure a politically desirable future generation.
I absolutely agree that most people are stupid and should not vote (to put it bluntly), but the alternative is much worse.