3 ms·

A radical proposal: there is no minimum voting age, but to enrol to vote you must pass a civics exam-so a 12 year old who passes the exam can vote, but a 50 yea

A radical proposal: there is no minimum voting age, but to enrol to vote you must pass a civics exam-so a 12 year old who passes the exam can vote, but a 50 year old who fails it (or refuses to sit it) can’t. I really doubt this proposal would ever actually be implemented, but still it is an interesting idea to ponder-in the abstract it seems fairer than a semi-arbitrary cutoff based on chronological age

sparkie 1y ago
That just gives power to whoever administers the civics exams - which would obviously be a government controlled body. Better idea should just be that you should be a taxpayer to vote. No tax = no vote. Why should people who aren't contributing decide how to spend the money of those contributing? A 16 year old who works has a bigger stake than a 21 year old jobless bum stuck in their parents home smoking weed and playing vidya games.
- fsflover 1y ago
  > which would obviously be a government controlled body It could be an NGO obeying the people, not govenment.
  - skissane 1y ago
    It could be something like the Australian Electoral Commission-which is widely respected as an independent apolitical government agency
jackvalentine 1y ago
Classic tactic to disenfranchise people. https://allthatsinteresting.com/voting-literacy-test https://allthatsinteresting.com/voting-literacy-test
- skissane 1y ago
  I think the intention behind things makes a big difference. The tests you are talking about were deliberately introduced as a scheme to deny a racial minority the right to vote; my idea has a very different intention behind it. Of course, I totally see how it might lead to unintentional indirect discrimination (“disparate impact”)-but there is a difference between that, and what was essentially direct discrimination covered with a thin veneer of “plausible deniability”.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
harvey9 1y ago
Reminds me of Philip k Dick's story The Pre-persons.
whoisyc 1y ago
Given how the UK works, chances are sooner or later they will only teach the answer to the exam in “public”[1] schools. [1] They are actually private and selective.

sparkie 1y ago

That just gives power to whoever administers the civics exams - which would obviously be a government controlled body. Better idea should just be that you should be a taxpayer to vote. No tax = no vote. Why should people who aren't contributing decide how to spend the money of those contributing? A 16 year old who works has a bigger stake than a 21 year old jobless bum stuck in their parents home smoking weed and playing vidya games.

fsflover 1y ago
> which would obviously be a government controlled body It could be an NGO obeying the people, not govenment.
- skissane 1y ago
  It could be something like the Australian Electoral Commission-which is widely respected as an independent apolitical government agency

jackvalentine 1y ago

Classic tactic to disenfranchise people. https://allthatsinteresting.com/voting-literacy-test https://allthatsinteresting.com/voting-literacy-test

skissane 1y ago
I think the intention behind things makes a big difference. The tests you are talking about were deliberately introduced as a scheme to deny a racial minority the right to vote; my idea has a very different intention behind it. Of course, I totally see how it might lead to unintentional indirect discrimination (“disparate impact”)-but there is a difference between that, and what was essentially direct discrimination covered with a thin veneer of “plausible deniability”.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

harvey9 1y ago

Reminds me of Philip k Dick's story The Pre-persons.

whoisyc 1y ago

Given how the UK works, chances are sooner or later they will only teach the answer to the exam in “public”[1] schools. [1] They are actually private and selective.