If You Needed to Pass an Exam to Vote
-
It works in Australia. The main upside is since voting is mandatory the onus is on the government (or more precisely, an independent body called the Australian Electoral Commission) to make sure there are enough polling places, voting papers etc to accommodate the full turn out. Further, voting is done on a Saturday and there is plenty of opportunity to vote early/do a postal vote/vote from a completely different electorate etc.
My understanding from several US elections I've seen is there are a LOT of people who would like to vote but can't due to work, ridiculous waiting times, lack of facilities etc. Compulsory voting would mean all of this would have to be taken care of without the states mucking around with their own rules.
To address the issue you have, yes, people who have no clue turn up and vote BUT whilst voting is compulsory, submitting a valid vote is not. So long as you turn up and take your bits of paper you can just draw a dick on them or whatever if you don't feel you know enough to have a say.
You can (and should) provide fair access to voting without making it mandatory. Most people would probably submit a valid vote anyway, there's a lot of no/low information voters already and refusing to vote, for example to boycott the election or for whatever other reason is also a valid political stance. Plus I'm not a fan of any financial penalties because they're basically an extra civil rights subscription for the wealthy who can afford to pay the fines, while a poor person who doesn't make it to the polling booth gets disproportionately screwed.
-
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.
There'd need to be a massive overhaul of the education system. Most people who do graduate still make stupid-ase, self-sabotaging choices.
-
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?
If everybody keeps being allowed to vote, what can be done to improve the quality of the outcome?
With you being the judge of what is the "quality of the outcome"? That isn't democratic.
-
If everybody keeps being allowed to vote, what can be done to improve the quality of the outcome?
With you being the judge of what is the "quality of the outcome"? That isn't democratic.
Right, who could make that judgement? And everybody voting under the influence of propaganda is also not democratic.
So what is the moral thing to do?
-
Just people like you, for some reason.
This is a bit reminiscent of Trump's "everything I don't like is fake news" routine.
-
It works in Australia. The main upside is since voting is mandatory the onus is on the government (or more precisely, an independent body called the Australian Electoral Commission) to make sure there are enough polling places, voting papers etc to accommodate the full turn out. Further, voting is done on a Saturday and there is plenty of opportunity to vote early/do a postal vote/vote from a completely different electorate etc.
My understanding from several US elections I've seen is there are a LOT of people who would like to vote but can't due to work, ridiculous waiting times, lack of facilities etc. Compulsory voting would mean all of this would have to be taken care of without the states mucking around with their own rules.
To address the issue you have, yes, people who have no clue turn up and vote BUT whilst voting is compulsory, submitting a valid vote is not. So long as you turn up and take your bits of paper you can just draw a dick on them or whatever if you don't feel you know enough to have a say.
I'd love to know how many people either draw a dick, or vote for the legalised cannabis party or whatever.
-
It works in Australia. The main upside is since voting is mandatory the onus is on the government (or more precisely, an independent body called the Australian Electoral Commission) to make sure there are enough polling places, voting papers etc to accommodate the full turn out. Further, voting is done on a Saturday and there is plenty of opportunity to vote early/do a postal vote/vote from a completely different electorate etc.
My understanding from several US elections I've seen is there are a LOT of people who would like to vote but can't due to work, ridiculous waiting times, lack of facilities etc. Compulsory voting would mean all of this would have to be taken care of without the states mucking around with their own rules.
To address the issue you have, yes, people who have no clue turn up and vote BUT whilst voting is compulsory, submitting a valid vote is not. So long as you turn up and take your bits of paper you can just draw a dick on them or whatever if you don't feel you know enough to have a say.
ridiculous waiting times, lack of facilities etc.
This is a big part of the GOP's strategy for maintaining power in a "democracy" despite not having the support of anywhere near a majority of the general public. Wherever possible, they ensure that voting in Democratic areas is as difficult as they can make it. In some places they've even made it illegal just to hand out water to people waiting in line to vote.
-
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 think I might've come across incorrectly when I said cultural decay. I mean to convey the consequences of a cultures effect on politics. For example wars, pollution, or nuclear weapons. I think you'd have trouble denying those have effects that are inherently social and require civic cooperation to prevent. Doing otherwise seems to me to actually objectively be a problem, assuming you value living. That's actually what I meant about laziness as well, that we're less invested in the core responsibilities that now exist with how advanced our technology and societies have become.
I agree you can't force anyone, that's not freedom, but I also feel and fear we may be past the point where inspiration can handle the challenges. FDR never had nuclear war looming, the interconnected and chaotic nature of social media to contend with, or a bevy of other modern factors like llms that I get the gut feeling are insurmontable. I'd like to be convinced otherwise instead of subscribing to apathy but I feel like I'm living through the dawn of a new age.
-
This post did not contain any content.
They used to do that in the US during the Jim Crow era. It went predictably.
-
This post did not contain any content.
It's not working. We have relatively equal education in Germany, and we have plenty of intelligent, educated people voting far right.
-
The trouble is that barriers to voting will always be manipulated by the people in charge to exclude specific people.
That's just a statement and not necessarily true just because you say so.
Anyway, such a test would obviously not be about Nascar or illegal immigrants, but rather the structure of the government and the content of the constitution, testing whether the testee understands their nation, its values, and the democratic principles it is founded on. I don't buy the pseudo killer argument that the test would eventually and automatically be corrupted. Keep it on the subject matter, and as long as the constitution doesn't change, the test doesn't change meaningfully. Everything outside these topics is irrelevant to the test.
testing whether the testee understands their nation, its values, and the democratic principles it is founded on
It seems like you only want people with certain "values" to be able to vote. What even are a nation's "values" anyway? Most of the time I hear that it's just vague nationalist propaganda about how our nation and our people are wonderful. I will admit that's a bit of a specific nitpick though.
As for "the structure of government and the content of the constitution", I honestly don't think the details of how laws are passed or how many seats are in congress, etc, matter much when it comes to deciding which policies you support and which party you'll vote for.
By their very nature, laws like this exclude people who are less educated and have less free time and/or motivation to study for your test. These are almost always going to be also the most disadvantaged and poorly treated people in society.
-
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.
Aww, my suffrage.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Who determines the questions and answers? Now they are the ones determining who can vote and thus the people in control.
-
It's not working. We have relatively equal education in Germany, and we have plenty of intelligent, educated people voting far right.
Are they very educated then?
-
It's not working. We have relatively equal education in Germany, and we have plenty of intelligent, educated people voting far right.
Yup. Same in the States.
People are fundamentally selfish; sometimes, that selfishness extends to their family, and rarely, to their immediate community. But rarely will people vote for something that has a direct negative impact on their own interests but which benefits the majority. Smart, educated, dumb, ignorant; the tendency is toward selfishness.
Education and intelligence influences empathy, and can impart greater long-term thinking, but it doesn't guarantee it. As stupid as we may believe Bezos and Musk to be, they're clearly educated, and act selfishly, like the majority of the 1%.
-
Who determines the questions and answers? Now they are the ones determining who can vote and thus the people in control.
Still a better system than your electoral college.
-
I think it's supposed to say "Cross out the digit necessary", so one digit, in which case cross out the 1 because there's enough 0's that crossing out one 0 isn't enough.
It's 10 that has me confused. Is it asking for the last letter of the first word that starts with 'L' in that sentence? It doesn't actually specify.
And question 12, looks like the intent was below circle 3, but they put below circle 2. So is it a typo, or another intentionally ambiguous question where you can fail whoever you want?
-
You realize that literacy tests were used to exclude minorities from voting, right? The idea is not fine because it's inherently oppressive.
Yes holy shit Jesus fuck yes I know this. Read again the second part where I said that there's no way to do this in reality.
-
It's not working. We have relatively equal education in Germany, and we have plenty of intelligent, educated people voting far right.
“Educated” does not equal intelligent, and it certainly does not imply broad intelligence. You can train a relatively stupid human being to do all kinds of stuff and if you’ve ever worked with people with degrees you know what little value they carry.
I went to college and have white collar career and my family is largely university educated. I worked with structural engineers at my last job and half them were just barely able to do their jobs with the worst ones being the senior people. Elsewhere in the world there have been anti-vax doctors and nurses, psychotic therapists, and theologians who have read the bible who still do all the horrible things they definitely know are bullshit. I bet nearly half the people here on Lemmy know a software developer or three who shouldn’t ever touch a computer. People with degrees are more likely to be more intelligent but, especially while living in a world where they’re basically expected, that’s really just not a guarantee.
-
Still a better system than your electoral college.
No. Its just another tool used to be racist and reduce minority votes.
We dont have to guess or assume. It already happened and thats what it was for.
Its not a better system. If you want to pretend though... you can at most say its the same.
