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.

Oh! Oh! I know this one!

Telling someone else they're doing freedom wrong!

You mean most people know better?

How could society signal to themselves that they know?

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.

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.

@[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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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)

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.