I argue that there should be a voting test - in concept - because people who do not know anything or enough about the subject under vote should not be allowed to make decisions on that subject, especially when they affect large groups of people.
I argue that the only way to argue that a voting test is conceptually a bad idea is to argue, in part, that even a vote in total ignorance of the subject of the vote is a valuable vote (a “good” vote) and should be counted towards something that may affect millions of people.
I argue that if you believe that even an ignorant vote should count, then you must therefore allow underaged people and insane people to vote, as they are usually prevented from doing so due to the belief that they are insufficiently educated and/or insufficiently experienced, and/or not rational enough, to make a “good” vote.
I argue that some young people and some legally insane people are knowledgeable and rational enough to vote on certain issues, and I argue that some people above the voting age, and who are legally sane, are less educated, knowledgeable, and quite possibly less rational than some of the legally insane.
Not sure, but you might have to include violent criminals as well, since a history or proclivity towards violence does not at all imply a lack of reason or education.
I absolutely concede that this is nearly impossible to do in practice, as the education playing field in most countries is not even, and it is probably impossible to guarantee consistency and objectivity of the people who design the tests.
You’re beginning from an unsupported and unproven hypothesis: that educated individuals will make better political choices. There’s little evidence to support that position. If you look at support and opposition to the Vietnam War within the US, there was – consistently – less support and more principled opposition for people lacking college degree. (Likely not only because they were disproportionately doing the fighting.)
Take the logic of your argument a little further and you’d be consulting only experts on any particular issue. Well, most people who invest the time in becoming very well informed in any particular issue do so because they have a vested interest. Giving individuals with a vested interest the only say over public policy is a recipe for rent-seeking behavior: each and every interest group will seek a public mandate, subsidies, tariff barriers to enrich themselves.
I’d write what I really think but that would get this post temped if not flushed down the memory hole.
Let’s just say that I have serious reservations about a self selecting elite diminishing the political clout of people they deem beneath them as a means to rule over them. It always ends badly.
I know you are a liberal and incapable of thinking past the 1st degree of consequence.
Actually, I believe my hypothesis is that you should not allow ignorant people - by which I mean people ignorant of the issue being voted on, or the irrational, not the pejorative “you’re ignorant” - to vote on an issue, not that a person needs a college degree. I never mentioned a college degree, right? I stated educated about the issue.
Conversely, are you arguing that less educated people will make better political choices? If they will make even just as good political choices in the long run, then you’ve lost nothing by only keeping those educated on the topics. Your argument requires a belief that the less educated will generally make better decisions.
Also, one example (or even many examples) of a bad decision by educated, college grads does not disprove the theory: who’s to say that if there had been a voting test, things wouldn’t have gone differently re the Vietnam War, because the politicians wouldn’t have to be reelected by an uneducated mob? And who’s to say that those same people, with even less education, wouldn’t have just gone ahead and nuked Vietnam?
Specific examples are not a counterargument as this is a conceptual discussion. How to actually implement a voting test is another argument entirely.
[quote=“Okami”]I’d write what I really think but that would get this post temped if not flushed down the memory hole.
Let’s just say that I have serious reservations about a self selecting elite diminishing the political clout of people they deem beneath them as a means to rule over them. It always ends badly.
I know you are a liberal and incapable of thinking past the 1st degree of consequence.[/quote]
Or perhaps “theory” and “polite discourse” is too difficult a concept for you to understand. I thought I was fairly clear - what am I sayin, I was ENTIRELY EXPLICIT - that the voting test would be nearly impossible to implement because of the lack of human success in being objective and consistent over a long period of time and when in charge of millions of people. Just skipped right over that bit, did you?
And you regularly demonstrate an unwilling to engage in civil discourse with anyone who doesn’t share your jaded views. Do grow up.[/quote]Unwillingness to engage in civil discourse the man is on the first step of fascism and you expect me to engage in civil discourse? This is an idea that should be laughed off of forumosa and and proper thinking person should immediately shun. The fact that he can’t see where his thinking will lead and how it will effect society in later years if implemented is not my fault, but a hindrance of his own due to his misguided political beliefs.
So how about the next time you get your little panties in a not, you actually think about the discussion and not your personal distaste for the person posting.
So how could it work? I personally don’t think it’s desirable to exclude anyone from voting (although don’t agree with compulsory voting as is done in Australia).
Say for example, there is a population of 100. To give equal weight to all issues, you’d need 10 economic experts, 10 environmental experts, 10 education experts, 10 military experts, 10 human rights experts, 10 agriculture experts, 10 law experts, 10 resource (mining etc) experts and so on.
And you regularly demonstrate an unwilling to engage in civil discourse with anyone who doesn’t share your jaded views. Do grow up.[/quote]So how about the next time you get your little panties in a not, you actually think about the discussion and not your personal distaste for the person posting.[/quote]Your principled objection has absolutely nothing to do with your dismissal, which I quoted. It’s the same damned excuse you trot out any time your particular paradigm bumps up against something that rubs you the wrong way.
And, personal distaste? I don’t know you from Adam, so try again. What I don’t like is your aggressive dismissal of all things liberal. It’s like reading Chris on Republicans.
What Twotongues is getting at is a form of licensing that inhibits the political clout of undesired views in the end. Then they can rewrite the tests to make sure that only people who believe in what they do get the right to vote, it’s generally leads to a sort of executive branch legislating through the bureaucracy that leads to banana republicanism and an ever increasing gray economy.
It would be no different if their were a licensing regime for professional photographers and unless you chose to follow certain guidelines then you would be excluded and not allowed to work in your chosen field. A better imaginary example is that I don’t believe gingers should vote so I turn out a political test that makes it impossible to vote, like a medical exam part that disqualifies you because of freckles. The possibilities are endless and none of them are good.
And you regularly demonstrate an unwilling to engage in civil discourse with anyone who doesn’t share your jaded views. Do grow up.[/quote]So how about the next time you get your little panties in a not, you actually think about the discussion and not your personal distaste for the person posting.[/quote]Your principled objection has absolutely nothing to do with your dismissal, which I quoted. It’s the same damned excuse you trot out any time your particular paradigm bumps up against something that rubs you the wrong way.
And, personal distaste? I don’t know you from Adam, so try again. What I don’t like is your aggressive dismissal of all things liberal. It’s like reading Chris on Republicans.[/quote]
So now you get to go completely off topic in thread because you’re a moderator?
*Sorry that was suppose to be a PM, btw when did you ever get on Chris’s case about the same thing?
Well that pretty much disqualifies you from any intelligent discussion of anything you deem to be a slippery slope.
“the first step of fascism”, that’s a laughable statement. Here’s a first step of fascism: claiming that an argument is “the first step of fascism” just because you don’t like the potential effects of its practical application, instead of making a reasoned argument against it.
How about naturalization tests then? Why should a person have to know about the US and its history to become a citizen? Especially when people who pass the test usually know a hell of a lot more than the people who grew up in the country? We want them to pass the test so they know what the hell they’re getting involved in, to make them part of the culture. So if they fail, they shouldn’t be allowed in for precisely the same reasons you’re stating are OK conditions to vote.
How about a US citizen who can’t speak English? Should they be allowed to vote?
Uh, didn’t they try this in Rome?
I ain’t saying you’re wrong here, bra, in fact I agree, but you do realize that you’re striking at the very beating heart of the democratic (small d, small d) ideal, don’t you?
[quote=“TwoTongues”]Conversely, are you arguing that less educated people will make better political choices? If they will make even just as good political choices in the long run, then you’ve lost nothing by only keeping those educated on the topics. Your argument requires a belief that the less educated will generally make better decisions.[/quote]No, they may make better or worse choices; different or the same choices. What you lose is legitimacy, because anyone excluded goes unrepresented. And legitimacy is a very, very big part of the ball game.
[quote=“TwoTongues”]Specific examples are not a counterargument as this is a conceptual discussion. How to actually implement a voting test is another argument entirely.[/quote]If you’re an empiricist, and believe that history has anything to teach, even if only prudence, then specific examples should serve as warning signs. Idealism untethered gets bloody, fast.
[quote=“Okami”]So now you get to go completely off topic in thread because you’re a moderator?
*Sorry that was suppose to be a PM, btw when did you ever get on Chris’s case about the same thing?[/quote]No, I get to fire off broadsides in an attempt to keep the mudslinging to a minimum.
I don’t see you actually replying to any of the arguments I have made.
You basically say some form of a test in order to vote is good and I see it as an abomination that should be smothered in its crib before it takes root. When such political tests are given you create a faction that spends it’s time and energy gathering more and more political, economic and social capital than your average member of society and to their detriment, in the same way that PDSVA currently does in Venezuela.
The difference in a naturalization test versus a voting test is you are choosing to accept the rights and responsibilities of the country you are immigrating to. You are gaining something while a political test means you are losing a right and responsibility. One is a test for gain something deemed valuable and the other is a test not to lose something deemed valuable.
[quote=“Okami”]What Twotongues is getting at is a form of licensing that inhibits the political clout of undesired views in the end. Then they can rewrite the tests to make sure that only people who believe in what they do get the right to vote, it’s generally leads to a sort of executive branch legislating through the bureaucracy that leads to banana republicanism and an ever increasing gray economy.
It would be no different if their were a licensing regime for professional photographers and unless you chose to follow certain guidelines then you would be excluded and not allowed to work in your chosen field. A better imaginary example is that I don’t believe gingers should vote so I turn out a political test that makes it impossible to vote, like a medical exam part that disqualifies you because of freckles. The possibilities are endless and none of them are good.[/quote]
I don’t think guidelines were what TT was getting at, were they? I read it as more about expertise in a field - you don’t have to be an expert in everything. Following guidelines is more along the lines of the Bush administration conveniently overlooking opinions that differed from their own, right?
Personally, I really, really wish the goddamned mouthbreathers weren’t allowed to vote. And blacks. And women. And people I didn’t like. It would make things SO much easier and better. For me, at least.
