If You Needed to Pass an Exam to Vote
-
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?
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. -
This post did not contain any content.
wrote last edited by [email protected]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.
-
First question on the test:
"What is the most important American value?"Oh! Oh! I know this one!
Telling someone else they're doing freedom wrong!
-
the main function of the contemporary media: to convey the message that even if you’re clever enough to have figured out that it’s all a cynical power game, the rest of America is a ridiculous pack of sheep.
This is the trap.
-David Graeber, The Democracy Project
You mean most people know better?
How could society signal to themselves that they know?
-
@[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.
/jkThe ambiguity was by design. It let the test proctor decide who did or did not pass with near impunity. This was used to legally deny voting rights to minorities.
-
I did my best. Do I get to vote?
wrote last edited by [email protected]Nope. The answer to number ten is 'a'.
Assuming you went with "last", but that starts with 'l', not 'L'. Each other question also specifies "one this line" where relevant, but not this one. The first word starting with 'L' is "Louisiana".
The trick of the test is that it's subjective to the person grading it. I could have also told you that the line drawing one (12) was wrong by just saying it's not the correct way to do it. Or that 11 was wrong because you didn't make the number below one million, it's equal to one million. Or if you crossed off one more zero I'd say you could have gotten fewer by crossing off the 1 at the start. Or that a long string of zeros isn't a properly formatted number.
-
The ambiguity was by design. It let the test proctor decide who did or did not pass with near impunity. This was used to legally deny voting rights to minorities.
@[email protected] Yeah, I'm aware, my reply was an attempt to "Monty-Pythonize" the degree of absurdity from the questions
-
@[email protected] Yeah, I'm aware, my reply was an attempt to "Monty-Pythonize" the degree of absurdity from the questions
Oh, well, carry on, then. Carry on.
-
Oh good, now we have three completely different answers
Four. You need to make the number below (less than) one million, so cross out zeros until it's 100,000.
”0000000” isn't a properly formatted number.It's a fun game finding the ways you can tell someone whatever they said is wrong.
-
This post did not contain any content.
There is a general rejection of such a test. Obviously voting in its current form doesn't work. If everybody keeps being allowed to vote, what can be done to improve the quality of the outcome?
-
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.
The only way to do it would be to fundamentally change the structure of the system so that power is distributed horizontally instead of top-down. This way, no singular individual can consolidate power over others. Essentially, we need an entirely new government and economics (as capitalism is inherently hierarchical and exploitative), a total redistribution of wealth and power of authority.
-
Not saying this is the correct route, but I do see the cultural decay, foreign influence, and complete lack of civic duty causing massive political failures in the US in real-time as we grow lazier, less interested, and more content. Any idea how we account for that in a reasonable fashion?
You don't. People have always said that about basically every country. What is "cultural decay"? Define "civic duty". Why is it a problem that people are content? Are we lazier? Are people on average more content now?
The key lesson is that you can't force people to care about what you do. Inspire people and they'll follow you, don't and they'll do something else. FDR increased a sense of civic duty by paying people to do civic works.
-
I did my best. Do I get to vote?
wrote last edited by [email protected]Here's a more straightforward test. Please share the RGB value from the site below that most closely matches your skin tone and I'll let you know if you pass or fail.
RGB Color Picker
A fast and simple RGB color picker. Drag the pointer to change the color and copy the RGB or Hex value in one click.
(rgbcolorpicker.com)
-
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.Thank you for getting what I was trying to say. Spot on, I don't think the idea is wrong. It would be nice if there was a test to say "hey are you able to vote on these topics, have you researched, are you voting with your brain or with emotions?" - which is why I say the idea is fine. There isn't though. There isn't a single way to do that fairly or equitably.
Thank god the commenters immediately jumped down my throat to tell me what I already knew.
-
I did my best. Do I get to vote?
Number 11 says, "cross out the number," as in, only one number. Pretty sure you have to cross out "1" so that it's just a bunch of zeros.
-
This is probably in part a meritocracy, though how the government defines 'merit' is probably quite subjective.
Humans are all too human. A purely statistical vote such as proportional representation is most likely the most scientific method regardless of what government is elected. If a civilisation must fall through its own vices and fallacy (oh hey, we've been there before!), then let's allow the collective consciousness of our fellow human beings work it out.
Ever...so...fucking...slowly.
The most scientific method would be one that doesn't rely on a singular entity to represent the majority. It is impossible to adequately represent the interests of all within a community through one singular political entity who has full authority to dictate law, especially in a stratified society of differing classes with diametrically oppositional interests. Due to the implicit biases of the individual holding power of authority, they will always choose what is in their best interests of their respective class, which intrinsically will be to the detriment of the oppositional class.
Instead, power of authority must be distributed horizontally, all parties of interest retain autonomy, representing themselves through a multi-tiered, federated structure where any political agreements come about through consensus of those involved.
-
I read it as "1." Which underlines the point, I think
Oh, yes. Reading it again you're correct. I was looking for the number of letter on the sentence. When it clearly says of. Guess I don't deserve to vote.
-
I mean purely pedantic, I have no idea the original test writers... but based on how I read the words
The number (one singular number needs to be crossed out)
Below one million, IE number < 1,000,000
So my conclusion
10000000000 < 1,000,000There is more than one right answer, which means there's always a wrong answer to disqualify the target of prejudice from voting.
-
Um fuck you? Being autistic doesn't mean we can't circle a letter or understand a sentence. Hell, this shit is incredibly literal minded and is easy as hell for us. Maybe you're the one with trouble.....
The point is they are not literal in any sense. Most of these questions can be interpreted at least 2 or more ways. I can't even wrap my head around what question 1 even wants. It's like word salad if you really read it carefully and literally.
-
There is a general rejection of such a test. Obviously voting in its current form doesn't work. If everybody keeps being allowed to vote, what can be done to improve the quality of the outcome?
An education system that doesn't aim to turn the population into diligent cattle.
