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.

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.

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.

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.

There is more than one right answer, which means there's always a wrong answer to disqualify the target of prejudice from voting.

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.

An education system that doesn't aim to turn the population into diligent cattle.

The concept that only the educated should vote is essentially the entire advantage of living in a republic. If the test was actually fairly made it would be fine, the real problem is it would be used to limit specific demographics from voting while not actually ensuring only the educated can vote

You mean like how the house and senate are the ones who actually vote on the laws instead of direct democracy?

Make it more accessible and provide better candidates.

Accessible things like:

• nearly anything other than first past the post
• Mandated Paid time off to vote.
• Vote by mail(universal absentee ballot).
• Strict adherence to vote outcomes (Congress cannot ignore at state nor national level).
• full-stop limits on campaign spending
• reform campaign donation regulation
• limit campaign advertising to small window near election (e.g. 3 months prior)

Better candidates like:

• Anyone left of "defacing property is equivalent to or worse than assault on a person"
• One that has a platform people are excited to vote for

I promise you there's plenty of highly educated idiots, such a test would only limit the voting base to elite idiots.

Voting should be mandatory, punished by like a $200 fine for non voters.

Keep trying, Jay. One day you'll make a funny comic.

You sure do love calling people fascist, you've done it multiple times today.

Considering I'm against the concept of living in hierarchical government structures, such as republics, that's not exactly a benefit from my perspective. It just exposes the flaws of living under hierarchy.

I mean.... I don't see the comic portraying the idea as good. More just using it as a vehicle to call most people dumb.

That's a perfect example of its ambiguousness; I read that as "the number below [this question]" and assumed I had to cross out enough zeros to make it 1,000,000.

Yeah, but the actual answer is how white are you?

You realize that literacy tests were used to exclude minorities from voting, right? The idea is not fine because it's inherently oppressive.

Yes, let's force everyone to vote whether or not they have any clue what's going on or who the candidates are, great idea.

Nope, it's a terrible idea.

Who defines 'service'? Who assigns 'service'? Who decides you have done enough 'service'? Who decides who is capable or not capable of 'service'? What happens when two different officials have different ideas on the above? What happens when different administrative regions have different ideas on the above? What happens when different regions have different numbers of Voters? What are the health risks of 'service'? What the health risks of the jobs that aren't 'service'? What about people who are incapable of doing 'service'? What about people who choose not to do 'service'? How are resources distributed between Voters and Non-Voters? What about political issues that largely only affect Non-Voters? What happens when the Non-Voters vastly outnumber the Voters and rightfully decide this is a crappy system?

I suggest the game Shadowrun if you want a look at a world where the Certified Citizens are a small minority. It's not pretty.