I also thought it a good idea at one point. I've since been convinced otherwise.

BUT, I do think we need some way for intolerant people to be stripped of the political power of the vote. I just can't figure out a way it could possibly be implemented without being weaponized against the marginalized. It may be better to implement it and attempt "constant vigilance" -- it seems like there are already necessary system that can be so weaponized that still do more good than harm.

Okay buddy cryptofash rhetoric

No it's not.

Ehh... I think it's fundamentally problematic. Why should only a subset of the adult population be allowed to vote on laws that affect everyone?

You're assuming that the grading system follows the "literal minded" definitions. On top of that, you better believe that they'll make you do the test in a loud and overstimulating environment.

You don't understand the test if you think it's all literal and "about circling the letter."

You would, in fact, get failed by the white eugenicists giving it to you the moment they figured out you were autistic.

One of the reasons they would know is that you think there are objectively correct answers to all of the questions and that most of them are not traps to allow a biased test giver to fail you and pass someone else that gave the same answer.

So... What's stopping the government in power from implementing systems that stop their political opponents holding those service positions?

Instructions unclear. Drew circle instead of line.

In most places, citizens below a certain age can't vote, yet laws affect them as well. By extension, one could probably argue that some people "don't know what's best for them" and experts/educated people are better suited to make the laws.

(However, creating such a test would obviously be impossible in practice, and would result in a conflict of interest, leading to discrimination, as muusemuuse points out.)

No I agree it absolutely would NOT work any time near this generation. It's not happening in our lifetimes, and if it does...that's probably bad. But conceptually, it is feasible...assuming like 50 other variables we are currently missing.

Yeah it's one of those ideas that work great if it's the way we had always done things for several generations...but it's not gonna work if we try to start it when anyone alive now is still...well...alive.

Humans in 2025 are...well, mostly horrible. So if we're working with this stock, it's never going to work. It's more of an idea that works really well AFTER the morons die from COVID/etc. because they refused to wear a mask unless that mask let them brutalize brown folks. Long-term, I think it's in idea we shouldn't bin (as a species). But it absolutely won't work TODAY.

I did my best. Do I get to vote?

Judging from the rest of this author's work, I highly doubt they thought about this any deeper than a puddle.

I read it as "1." Which underlines the point, I think

Uhh, no the idea is most certainly not "fine"

It's only fine if you don't think about it at all beyond the surface level presentation.

@[email protected] @[email protected]

TIL I'm possibly partially (if not entirely) illiterate.

Starting with the first question, "Draw a line a_round_ the number or letter of this sentence.", which can be ELI5'd as follows:

The main object is the number or letter of this sentence, which is the number or letter signaling the sentence, which is "1", which is a number, so it's the number of this sentence, "1". This is fine.

The action being required is to "Draw a line around" the object, so, I must draw a line.

However, a line implies a straight line, while around implies a circle (which is round), so it must be a circle.

However, what's around a circle isn't called a line, it's a circumference. And a circumference is made of infinitesimally small segments so small that they're essentially an arc. And an arc is a segment insofar it effectively connects two points in a cartesian space with two dimensions or more... And a segment is essentially a finite range of a line, which is infinite...

The original question asks for a line, which is infinite. However, any physical object is finite insofar it has a limited, finite area, so a line couldn't be drawn: what can be drawn is a segment whose length is less or equal to the largest diagonal of the said physical object, which is a rectangular paper, so drawing a line would be impossible, only segments comprising a circumference.

However, a physically-drawn segment can't be infinitesimal insofar the thickness of the drawing tool would exceed the infinitesimality from an infinitesimal segment. It wouldn't be a circumference, but a polygon with many sides.

So I must draw a polygon with enough sides to closely represent a circumference, composed by the smallest possible segments, which are finite lines.

However, the question asks for a line, and the English preposition a implies a single unit of something... but the said something can be a set (e.g. a flock, which implies many birds)... but line isn't a set...

However, too many howevers.

So, if I decide to draw a circumference centered at the object (the number 1), as in circle the number, maybe it won't be the line originally expected.

I could draw a box instead, which would technically be around it, and would be made of lines (four lines, to be exact). But, again, a line isn't the same as lines, let alone four lines.

I could draw a single line, but it wouldn't be around.

Maybe I could reinterpret the space. I could bend the paper and glue two opposing edges of it, so any segment would behave as a line, because the drawable space is now bent and both tips of the segment would meet seamlessly.

But the line wouldn't be around the object, so the paper must be bent in a way that turns it into a cone whose tip is centered on the object, so a segment would become a line effectively around the object...

However, I got no glue.

/jk

Iirc, in the book, the point was that it was hazardous service - there was a real risk of loss of life or limb, which they underlined at every opportunity (remember the recruiter's obviously prosthetic hand? He had one that blended in much better!) Otherwise, like dick_fineman said, customized to your abilities and you're provided for. The idea was to filter out the self-serving sort.

But yeah, the problem becomes who gets to assign which duty - it becomes very easy to assign some people more hazardous positions depending on how "correct" their thinking is. Or more subtle things, like cultural fit, or education level.

If there were a practical way to do it, a way to ensure that only those who were well informed on a topic could have a say in it wouldn't be an issue. The only barrier to voting would be your desire to inform yourself.

Unfortunately there isn't, because just about every word in the above sentences can be twisted by someone with illintent.
The concept isn't fundamentally flawed, it's just blocked by insurmountable obstacles.

If I recall correctly, Aristotle proposed something like only the educated being able to vote. I think if everyone was guaranteed free access to both a high school and college education, along with all food and living costs covered for anyone studying, then I could see having at least any associates level degree being an okay barrier of entry to voting.

However, such a thing would need to be protected by some unremovable barriers. For instance, education would need to continue receiving appropriate funding, food and other living costs such as renting a room would need to be covered even as the cost for these things change. People with disabilities would need to receive proper accommodations.

A caveat I’ll add is that there would need to be more community colleges built and much more funding for pre-K thru 12th grade as well.