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.

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.