6 ms·

Here is a potentially dumb idea: Before someone can declare candidacy for a public office, they should pass an exam that tests them on general and basic knowled

by Bhilai 5y ago

Here is a potentially dumb idea: Before someone can declare candidacy for a public office, they should pass an exam that tests them on general and basic knowledge on a wide variety of topics that proves that the person has some level of general awareness of tech that is so ubiquitous.

davidw 5y ago
This sort of thing was used in the past to keep Black people from voting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test#Voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test#Voting
- colpabar 5y ago
  Very true. Just like gifted programs in schools. We should keep the bar as low as possible so that no one can ever claim we're racist.
  - davidw 5y ago
    This isn't about claiming anything. It was very much used in practice for many years in southern states, to keep people who had the "wrong" colored skin from voting. It's great to have high standards for public office, but it's the voters who should hold their elected officials to those, not an arbitrary test imposed by the government.
- joncrane 5y ago
  The OP is saying the test is for holding office, not voting. There absolutely should be a higher bar for holding office than for voting.
  - thehappypm 5y ago
    Nope. Imagine a 99% white town where a Black man wants to run for mayor. Sorry pal, you failed the literacy test.
    - joncrane 5y ago
      How do you propose we vet office holders?
  - davidw 5y ago
    The point is that it's too easy for a malicious actor to utilize this kind of thing to keep the "wrong" people from participating in politics. I am sure the OP's suggestion was in good faith, just that they weren't aware of some of the history and potential repercussions.
  - itake 5y ago
    Maybe you're misunderstand, and if not I think your response is a bit disingenuous given that the commenter is saying the test can be used to marginalize a minority. The commenter's point is that these "tests" can be designed to be difficult for one race/community, but easy for another, thus preventing them from holding an office.
torstenvl 5y ago
Your proposal suggests that this result is due to lack of knowledge, rather than malice. While I'm a fan of Hanlon's Razor in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Governor's office clearly employs technologically competent people. That means that the Governor is either persisting despite knowing better, or is remaining deliberately ignorant despite the expertise at his disposal. Either way, this is at least somewhat intentional.
- UncleOxidant 5y ago
  > due to lack of knowledge, rather than malice I suspect it's a mix of both.
- MisterBastahrd 5y ago
  I've got plenty of life experience that proves that people in power who employ technologically competent people often refuse to listen to expert advice because might makes right. You don't have to be malicious to be incompetent.
  - indig0g0 5y ago
    Or you don't have to be incompetent to be malicious.
    - Domenic_S 5y ago
      Right, but if they passed the exam that removes their ability to feign ignorance on the record, leaving malice as the de facto motivation (again on the record)
- fouc 5y ago
  > Governor's office clearly employs technologically competent people. But you're assuming the Governor would pass the basic test that even shows that he is competent at listening to other competent people.
nerdkid93 5y ago
I agree that it's a potentially dumb idea, it sounds like just another kind of Jim Crow era law that could very easily be misused to prevent people from running for office for any reason that people in power see fit (e.g. racism, sexism, other -isms). The only way I see it being a good idea is if you just need to answer the provided questions, and not necessarily "pass" the exam, but that would necessitate voters actually caring if their lawmakers know anything about tech (or the other variety of topics included).
Someone1234 5y ago
Who gets to set the test? This is a well-intentioned but very wrong-headed idea. History is littered with examples of how these things are abused. It is up to voters to evaluate their chosen candidates for their qualities and qualifications for the job. The biggest problem right now is that too many vote on party lines instead of for candidates based on their qualities.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  History is littered with examples of eugenics programs, but that doesn't mean we should ban genetic testing.
  - Someone1234 5y ago
    A better analogy would be: > History is littered with examples of eugenics programs, but that doesn't mean we should ban eugenics. To which I'd argue we should absolutely ban eugenics because of the history of eugenics. Just like we should ban arbitrary political entry testing because of the history of exactly that. I'm not making an "apples Vs. oranges" comparison, I'm making an "apples vs. historical apples" one.
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      You're looking at it from a perspective of "must pass the test to qualify"? I'm looking at it from "test results should be public, anyone qualifies to run."
- tshaddox 5y ago
  There are already requirements for most elected officials. Age, citizenship, and residency requirements are common. Thus the slippery slope argument "if we have any requirements at all that's a slippery slope to having arbitrarily bad requirements" already applies equally to the current situation as it would to any proposal to change the requirements.
  - Someone1234 5y ago
ethbr0 5y ago
Don't worry about their passing: just require the results be publicly available. In the US, VoteSmart [0] and others have tried to do this with position surveys for years, but most politicians would prefer not to answer. [0] https://justfacts.votesmart.org/ https://justfacts.votesmart.org/
mdp2021 5y ago
You have forgotten to propose to test for morals, dignity and mental health. Because the matter and issue, in the specific case, is not with "notions". Edit: I don't even know why for some reason I forgot (probably because it comes without saying): basic wits. And, seeing that somebody really calls is an "odd idea": no, there absolutely should be requirements. Getting the appropriate measurements, reliably and feasibly, that is difficult. Yet, still duly. Duty, in the same intensity that suggests that thing holding office should be flung into space.
- elliekelly 5y ago
  There are a handful of states whose constitutions (ostensibly) “test” a for morals by requiring candidates for public office to believe in god. This, despite the federal constitution clearly stating: > No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    This is (really) interesting and telling, but what it really shows is that extremely low sophistication and its somehow complementary, a massive (and, look: unjustifiable) amount of ignorance, are diffuse in the world and made part of the legislation (that "no belief does guarantee developed morals", and that "no belief is required to develop morals", and that "morals come from a realm different than belief"¹ is just an example). The information you provided is a further alarm bell about the dire needs we have about vetting people in the current, desperate, worn out world. Normal social interaction as a way to fine tune the individual, the traditional selection way, shows to be ineffective today. -- ¹Oddly, in a world in which the concept of "identification" is increasingly spread, "curiously and consistently" I have not yet heard the expression "X identifies as a moral (and/or dignified, intelligent, sophisticated, compassionate, judicious, reliable...) agent". The concept of "identification" seems to be restricted to tribal matters (and, still notably, "earthly" criteria). These two interlinked factors are very telling about the issues in today's society.
SamReidHughes 5y ago
Such a person that could pass would be so unusual, he'd be very out of touch with the general population.
tshaddox 5y ago
Better idea: make it actually illegal to explicitly threaten illegal state violence against people. The governor should at the very minimum be forcibly removed from power for threatening state violence against someone who has very clearly not committed a crime.
CJefferson 5y ago
I suspect you would find almost no-one who would have been happy with both Trump's administration and then Biden's adminstration being in charge of writing a test to decide who gets to stand for public office.
mLuby 5y ago
Rulers can't be an expert in all the domains they oversee. Thus the test you speak of should be whether they can build a team of experts and harness that collective expertise to make good* decisions. Alternatively you could pick the person who's decisions have most often turned out to be good* ones, and hope that they continue making good* decisions. * For whatever you think is good.

by Bhilai 5y ago

davidw 5y ago

This sort of thing was used in the past to keep Black people from voting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test#Voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test#Voting

colpabar 5y ago
Very true. Just like gifted programs in schools. We should keep the bar as low as possible so that no one can ever claim we're racist.
- davidw 5y ago
  This isn't about claiming anything. It was very much used in practice for many years in southern states, to keep people who had the "wrong" colored skin from voting. It's great to have high standards for public office, but it's the voters who should hold their elected officials to those, not an arbitrary test imposed by the government.
joncrane 5y ago
The OP is saying the test is for holding office, not voting. There absolutely should be a higher bar for holding office than for voting.
- thehappypm 5y ago
  Nope. Imagine a 99% white town where a Black man wants to run for mayor. Sorry pal, you failed the literacy test.
  - joncrane 5y ago
    How do you propose we vet office holders?
- davidw 5y ago
  The point is that it's too easy for a malicious actor to utilize this kind of thing to keep the "wrong" people from participating in politics. I am sure the OP's suggestion was in good faith, just that they weren't aware of some of the history and potential repercussions.
- itake 5y ago
  Maybe you're misunderstand, and if not I think your response is a bit disingenuous given that the commenter is saying the test can be used to marginalize a minority. The commenter's point is that these "tests" can be designed to be difficult for one race/community, but easy for another, thus preventing them from holding an office.

torstenvl 5y ago

Your proposal suggests that this result is due to lack of knowledge, rather than malice. While I'm a fan of Hanlon's Razor in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Governor's office clearly employs technologically competent people. That means that the Governor is either persisting despite knowing better, or is remaining deliberately ignorant despite the expertise at his disposal. Either way, this is at least somewhat intentional.

UncleOxidant 5y ago
> due to lack of knowledge, rather than malice I suspect it's a mix of both.
MisterBastahrd 5y ago
I've got plenty of life experience that proves that people in power who employ technologically competent people often refuse to listen to expert advice because might makes right. You don't have to be malicious to be incompetent.
- indig0g0 5y ago
  Or you don't have to be incompetent to be malicious.
  - Domenic_S 5y ago
    Right, but if they passed the exam that removes their ability to feign ignorance on the record, leaving malice as the de facto motivation (again on the record)
fouc 5y ago
> Governor's office clearly employs technologically competent people. But you're assuming the Governor would pass the basic test that even shows that he is competent at listening to other competent people.

nerdkid93 5y ago

I agree that it's a potentially dumb idea, it sounds like just another kind of Jim Crow era law that could very easily be misused to prevent people from running for office for any reason that people in power see fit (e.g. racism, sexism, other -isms). The only way I see it being a good idea is if you just need to answer the provided questions, and not necessarily "pass" the exam, but that would necessitate voters actually caring if their lawmakers know anything about tech (or the other variety of topics included).

Someone1234 5y ago

Who gets to set the test? This is a well-intentioned but very wrong-headed idea. History is littered with examples of how these things are abused. It is up to voters to evaluate their chosen candidates for their qualities and qualifications for the job. The biggest problem right now is that too many vote on party lines instead of for candidates based on their qualities.

ethbr0 5y ago
History is littered with examples of eugenics programs, but that doesn't mean we should ban genetic testing.
- Someone1234 5y ago
  A better analogy would be: > History is littered with examples of eugenics programs, but that doesn't mean we should ban eugenics. To which I'd argue we should absolutely ban eugenics because of the history of eugenics. Just like we should ban arbitrary political entry testing because of the history of exactly that. I'm not making an "apples Vs. oranges" comparison, I'm making an "apples vs. historical apples" one.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    You're looking at it from a perspective of "must pass the test to qualify"? I'm looking at it from "test results should be public, anyone qualifies to run."
tshaddox 5y ago
There are already requirements for most elected officials. Age, citizenship, and residency requirements are common. Thus the slippery slope argument "if we have any requirements at all that's a slippery slope to having arbitrarily bad requirements" already applies equally to the current situation as it would to any proposal to change the requirements.
- Someone1234 5y ago

ethbr0 5y ago

Don't worry about their passing: just require the results be publicly available. In the US, VoteSmart [0] and others have tried to do this with position surveys for years, but most politicians would prefer not to answer. [0] https://justfacts.votesmart.org/ https://justfacts.votesmart.org/

mdp2021 5y ago

You have forgotten to propose to test for morals, dignity and mental health. Because the matter and issue, in the specific case, is not with "notions". Edit: I don't even know why for some reason I forgot (probably because it comes without saying): basic wits. And, seeing that somebody really calls is an "odd idea": no, there absolutely should be requirements. Getting the appropriate measurements, reliably and feasibly, that is difficult. Yet, still duly. Duty, in the same intensity that suggests that thing holding office should be flung into space.

elliekelly 5y ago
There are a handful of states whose constitutions (ostensibly) “test” a for morals by requiring candidates for public office to believe in god. This, despite the federal constitution clearly stating: > No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  This is (really) interesting and telling, but what it really shows is that extremely low sophistication and its somehow complementary, a massive (and, look: unjustifiable) amount of ignorance, are diffuse in the world and made part of the legislation (that "no belief does guarantee developed morals", and that "no belief is required to develop morals", and that "morals come from a realm different than belief"¹ is just an example). The information you provided is a further alarm bell about the dire needs we have about vetting people in the current, desperate, worn out world. Normal social interaction as a way to fine tune the individual, the traditional selection way, shows to be ineffective today. -- ¹Oddly, in a world in which the concept of "identification" is increasingly spread, "curiously and consistently" I have not yet heard the expression "X identifies as a moral (and/or dignified, intelligent, sophisticated, compassionate, judicious, reliable...) agent". The concept of "identification" seems to be restricted to tribal matters (and, still notably, "earthly" criteria). These two interlinked factors are very telling about the issues in today's society.

SamReidHughes 5y ago

Such a person that could pass would be so unusual, he'd be very out of touch with the general population.

tshaddox 5y ago

Better idea: make it actually illegal to explicitly threaten illegal state violence against people. The governor should at the very minimum be forcibly removed from power for threatening state violence against someone who has very clearly not committed a crime.

CJefferson 5y ago

I suspect you would find almost no-one who would have been happy with both Trump's administration and then Biden's adminstration being in charge of writing a test to decide who gets to stand for public office.

mLuby 5y ago

Rulers can't be an expert in all the domains they oversee. Thus the test you speak of should be whether they can build a team of experts and harness that collective expertise to make good* decisions. Alternatively you could pick the person who's decisions have most often turned out to be good* ones, and hope that they continue making good* decisions. * For whatever you think is good.