• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Having people pass an exam before voting

mist

Scholar
M
Joined
Jan 5, 2007
Messages
83
Some time ago, during our voting period, I saw some streetinterviews where people were asked what political party they were going to vote for and why. It turned out many people didn't have a clue what plans their favourite political party actually had.

Although I don't have scientific data on this, I suspect many people make an uninformed decision when voting. They're either only aware of their favourite's standpoints (and not the standpoints of their other choices), or simply vote on someone because they they saw them on tv, heard a speech, etc.

Recently something occured to me. What if we could force all votees to make an informed decision by having them pass a multiple choice test.

What do you think?

  1. Is this plan remotely feasible, and
  2. Do you think, if it was somehow implemented, it would improve the leadership (better political leaders are picked, and they try harder to get actual results)?
 
You're far from the first to think of it. The problem--even if we decided it was a good idea in principle--is coming up with the questions.

After all, the only point of such a quiz is to make sure people are aware of the issues they're voting on. But just imagine the political firestorm that would erupt over each side's attempt to "eliminate" voters from the other side's voting pool; The Democrats say knowledge of science is important to policy, so let's ask everyone how old the Earth is, or how evolution works. The Republicans say this is a Christian nation with a Christian majority, so let's get some questions on there about knowledge of the Bible.

If you eliminate all of the controversial questions, all questions where loaded wording could skew the results, you've eliminated all questions about the issues and are left with a worthless test.

All you'll have left is basic questions about the structure of government (name the three branches, etc) but even then there will be complaints that those with a poor public school education are getting eliminated, and can't vote on the issue most important to them - getting better education funding so people know these sort of things.
 
mist said:
  1. Is this plan remotely feasible, and
Click to expand...

Most places probably not, in the U.S. almost definitely not because of the history of the use of tests like that to disenfranchise segments of the population. Also, who decides what's on the test? And how much do you have to get right to pass? What happens if, after the election, the test is found to be unfair or incorrectly administered in certain places?

mist said:
  • Do you think, if it was somehow implemented, it would improve the leadership (better political leaders are picked, and they try harder to get actual results)?
Click to expand...

No, the political groups would just try harder to get more of their opponents voters disqualified by spreading misinformation about the test (similar to what happened in the 2008 U.S. election with people being called and told that they vote on a different day because of their party registration).

Although the test might be a good idea as a self-diagnostic (no consequences if you fail) so that before voting the people can see if they are well informed or not.
 
It's been tried in the US. Was outlawed by the Voting Rights Act.
 
David Wong said:
You're far from the first to think of it. The problem--even if we decided it was a good idea in principle--is coming up with the questions.

After all, the only point of such a quiz is to make sure people are aware of the issues they're voting on. But just imagine the political firestorm that would erupt over each side's attempt to "eliminate" voters from the other side's voting pool; The Democrats say knowledge of science is important to policy, so let's ask everyone how old the Earth is, or how evolution works. The Republicans say this is a Christian nation with a Christian majority, so let's get some questions on there about knowledge of the Bible.

If you eliminate all of the controversial questions, all questions where loaded wording could skew the results, you've eliminated all questions about the issues and are left with a worthless test.

All you'll have left is basic questions about the structure of government (name the three branches, etc) but even then there will be complaints that those with a poor public school education are getting eliminated, and can't vote on the issue most important to them - getting better education funding so people know these sort of things.
Click to expand...

Hmm, interesting, I hadn't thought of that.

But I don't think you'd be left with nothing if you removed stuff like evolution and the bible. There are things like healthcare plans, economy and war. The test could be mix and match different political statements. Like:

Forces should pull back out of country X / Forces should stay in country X : Political leader A / Political leader B.
Family should take care of the elderly / The government should take care of the elderly: Political leader A / Political leader B.

Could the importance of these issues really be debated?
 
mist said:
Forces should pull back out of country X / Forces should stay in country X : Political leader A / Political leader B.
Family should take care of the elderly / The government should take care of the elderly: Political leader A / Political leader B.

Could the importance of these issues really be debated?
Click to expand...


Reducing political issues to 4 word soundbytes is not a great way to improve on the polictical understanding of the general public. And yes the importance can be debated. When britian invaded tibet I don't think it was much of an election issue.
 
mist said:
Some time ago, during our voting period, I saw some streetinterviews where people were asked what political party they were going to vote for and why. It turned out many people didn't have a clue what plans their favourite political party actually had.

Although I don't have scientific data on this, I suspect many people make an uninformed decision when voting. They're either only aware of their favourite's standpoints (and not the standpoints of their other choices), or simply vote on someone because they they saw them on tv, heard a speech, etc.

Recently something occured to me. What if we could force all votees to make an informed decision by having them pass a multiple choice test.

What do you think?

  1. Is this plan remotely feasible, and
  2. Do you think, if it was somehow implemented, it would improve the leadership (better political leaders are picked, and they try harder to get actual results)?
Click to expand...

I'm responding before having read the other responses. My answers are yes and no in that order. It's certainly feasible in this day and age. It was feasible 100 years ago and it was outlawed for good reason.

Those who design and administer the tests are handed the power to decide who can vote and who can't. Concentrating that power in the hands of a few people results in a system that can easily be manipulated via those people. This is a bad idea IMO.

If the design team includes political opponents - usually in an attempt at fairness - then the resulting design tends to fail in the area of accomplishing meaningful work. A great deal of resources end up being directed at wasteful activities that tend to avoid dealing with the problem they were originally set up to solve. This often becomes an entrenched layer of bureaucracy in the system the next generation will try to fix. The cycle repeats until the people who either design or administer the tests are undermined until that leads to more catastrophic or scandalous results. This is, IMO, the best you can hope for from what you are suggesting.

Incidentally, when I was much much younger, I thought this idea well worth considering and thought about it a lot. I would certainly like to see our political system changed in a way such that legitimate experts are making key policy decisions. Barack Obama has appointed some scientific geniuses to cabinet level positions. I'm really happy to see that happen.

I do think our voting system could be improved to yield far better results for society at large. I think those solutions have to include a basic fundamental concept that everybody gets a vote - including the not-to-bright sorts who work at the most mundane of jobs because they aren't smart enough to do anything more mentally taxing than janitorial services. Every competent adult deserves a say in how their society is run and what directions it should take.
 
mist said:
What do you think?
Click to expand...
Bit like requiring a subset of skin colours, or a certain gender, or moneyed wealth or aristocratic title.

Is this plan remotely feasible
Click to expand...
Well yes, but it is very illiberal (that does not mean "conservative")

Do you think, if it was somehow implemented, it would improve the leadership (better political leaders are picked, and they try harder to get actual results)?
Click to expand...
I doubt it.
 
Up until a year or two ago, I was in favor of that. In fact, I even said so in the JREF thread discussing that topic. Now, I'm less so.

As for fairness and objectivity, I would imagine that the question should be based on the roles and duties of government officials. E.g. According to the Constitution, which of the following is a duty of the president?

I'd be against asking people to describe the positions of the major candidates.
 
mist said:
Hmm, interesting, I hadn't thought of that.

But I don't think you'd be left with nothing if you removed stuff like evolution and the bible. There are things like healthcare plans, economy and war. The test could be mix and match different political statements. Like:

Forces should pull back out of country X / Forces should stay in country X : Political leader A / Political leader B.
Click to expand...

But... how are you grading that? Which is the correct answer? I don't understand what you're quizzing here.

The idea was to see how knowledgeable the voters are, right?
 
This is one of those plans that are great in theory, awful in practice. It gives the unelected and unknown test-writers in effect the power to decide who will vote, and thus who will be elected. Increasing voters' knowledge is certainly a good idea, but this is not the way to do it.
 
mist said:
Family should take care of the elderly / The government should take care of the elderly: Political leader A / Political leader B.
Click to expand...

But what is the test goes:

People should rely on themselves, like Jefferson said! / We should dump the elderly on the taxpayers, so that their freeloading families will get a free ride : political leader A / political leader B.

Or, conversely:

The elderly should heartlessly starve to death / the wonderful government should take care of the weakest first of all : political leader A / political leader B.

The bias need not at all be as blatant as these deliberately exaggerated examples, nor conscious on the part of the test-writers, in order to influence the results.
 
Idiocracy

There only needs to be one test subject and that is the US Constitution. Do you and the candidates know and understand the Constitution if you don't then you don't deserve to decide the future direction of the country in any capacity period. The only religious question needs to be "what is the separation of Church and State"? Any answer outside of "the government shall favor no religion" you fail. As for grading if you get one question wrong you FAIL better luck next time the Constitution isn't that damn hard to understand. If people actually knew what the Constitution said we wouldn't have the "Patriot act" or "knock and walk" warrants.
 
Ok, and again: if someone fails the test do they still have to pay taxes? I'm not being snarky with this, I'm honestly interested.
 
You're right, there would be too many flaws with it. Too bad. :)

Thanks for sharing your views!

@David Wong: What I tried to suggest was a test where X statements were made and you would need to match them to X people.
@Sledge & Darth Rotor: Please don't siderail this thread. As an aside, of course they would. Foreign companies need to pay taxes too and they don't get a vote either.
 
'Cause I'm The TAXMAN....Yeahhhh.. I'm The TAX...MMMMAN!

Sledge said:
Ok, and again: if someone fails the test do they still have to pay taxes? I'm not being snarky with this, I'm honestly interested.
Click to expand...

Yes and your taxes will probably be higher because you can't vote to stop it. This may give you more incentive to try harder on your next go round. Of course people that are certified with mental handicaps will just pay the normal tax rate or none at all depending on their level of function.

Since you're from the UK you might not be aware that citizens of Washington D.C. pay taxes without full representation in congress their congressional delegate is highly restricted in their voting rights. D.C. even has "no taxation without representation" as a slogan printed on their local car tags as a protest. People have gone to jail for refusing to pay their taxes in the District over this issue but it hasn't changed since it was started.

In addition "To become a citizen of the United States, immigrants most often must be permanent resident with a green card for a period of time (usually 5 years). Permanent residents must pay taxes on their worldwide income and cannot vote"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_taxation_without_representation#Modern_use_in_the_United_States

.........."And You're Working For No One But ME!" .....TAXMAN!!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom