[quote=“cfimages”]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.
Or do some areas get more weighting than others?[/quote]
I don’t think it would work - come on, man, what part of “this is conceptual” and “people aren’t evenly educated enough and people aren’t fair and consistent enough” doesn’t everyone understand?
What I think on the practical implementation front is this: first, you have to ensure everyone is guaranteed a certain level of quality of education - otherwise you’re not giving everyone a fair shot; second, the tests wouldn’t require you need to be a college graduate who did a thesis on the subject, you’d need a general education about the subject, and from there you’d have the choice to go as in depth as you liked before voting time rolled around; third, the tests would have to be extremely carefully designed so as to eliminate racial and sexual etc bias to the extent possible; and fourth, there would have to be substantial oversight for the tests. The goal of all this is to maximize knowledge of the subject while minimizing exclusions to those truly uninterested or irrational.
I don’t believe any of that will happen any time soon, society (unfortunately) isn’t prepared to fund a quality education for everyone yet, and I don’t know how you get around the objectivity issues humans naturally have.
Representative democracy helps ameliorate the problem to a certain extent - however, we then run into the issue of the representatives being uneducated (or downright ignorant) about some topics.
[quote=“the chief”]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]
Yep I do, but who says that a democratic free-for-all is the best way to do things? It just seems to be better than most of what’s come before it, doesn’t mean it can’t be improved.
Well there is a voting test in Australia.[/quote]
How does that work out? Apparently not in murders of Jews, blacks, and women (at least not related to voting).
[quote=“TwoTongues”][quote=“cfimages”]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.
Or do some areas get more weighting than others?[/quote]
I don’t think it would work - come on, man, what part of “this is conceptual” and “people aren’t evenly educated enough and people aren’t fair and consistent enough” doesn’t everyone understand?
[/quote]
I got that bit. I thought we were talking hypothetical.
Legal age is 18, written into law, as if you didnt know. Human they may be, elegible to vote they are not, although they can enrol to vote at 17.[/quote]
Not arguing that it’s the law - what’s the rationale behind the law?
No idea, I never bothered to research that… google is your friend.[/quote]
Best guess: it’s a simple way to draw the line on those considered less rational, less educated, and less experienced. The assumption then is that more rational, more educated, more experienced are all more desirable in your voting base. So apparently, it is not simply a baseless assertion that more rational, more educated, and more experienced is more desirable, that’s actually the belief of the majority of western governments.
No idea, I never bothered to research that… google is your friend.[/quote]
Best guess: it’s a simple way to draw the line on those considered less rational, less educated, and less experienced. The assumption then is that more rational, more educated, more experienced are all more desirable in your voting base. So apparently, it is not simply a baseless assertion that more rational, more educated, and more experienced is more desirable, that’s actually the belief of the majority of western governments.[/quote]
Who decides just who is fit to vote? Who are you to say someone else is not good enough to vote?
They have the Electoral College in the US. I think that was implemented to not give too much power to ignorant farmers.
That’s no argument against the concept, only one example (of many) of shitty practice.[/quote]
I agree, I hate it when people use bad implementation or one negative example to discredit reasonable ideas.[/quote]Jim Crow amongst other things was a voting test. It tested the color of your skin and ancestry to determine if you could vote, which things you could use and places you could go. There’s a very real danger when you disenfranchise a group politically. You not only make violence more likely, but also remove a check from the unfettered political power of those in charge.
The American system was designed to keep the majority from disenfranchising the minority and has a done a reasonable good job of that with a few hiccups.
Oh so now you who would back a concept into deciding those who should be not be allowed to vote, because they are ignorant on issues, is into best guessing and assumptions.
That’s why your concept fails. Is an 18 year old with no work experience, no income, not to be considered? More the fool who decides that in Australia, as many young people are courted by political parties. So much so that when they are eligible for drivers licences at 17 they are encouraged to fill out voting enrolment forms. Why, because the “Youth Vote” of those under 25 has often decided the outcome of who gets elected.
You’re arguing the wrong side of the question. Unless your voter pool is so small as to be fundamental distorted and illegitimate, the likelihood of affecting results is marginal at best. Such disqualifications will, however, heavily compromise the results and perception of them. You NEED to start from the position that everyone gets a say and establish extremely clear, difficult to meet criteria for disenfranchising anyone.
The whole question, even as a hypothetical, is distasteful. Like arguing for the use of torture: the extension of protection should be a given, not an earned right.
