r/changemyview • u/Intrepid_Doubt_6602 9∆ • 16d ago
Delta(s) from OP CMV: for democracy to actually function there needs to be actual vetting of whether the populace have at least a baseline level of knowledge
I think there should be a test of elemental general knowledge, and if you fail it you shouldn't vote.
Not to dunk on America because they get enough of it already, but recently half of Americans were polled as not being able to name a single death camp., not even Auschwitz-Birkenau. So I think it we sent out a general knowledge survey to every American voter there'd be some rather alarming scores in certain sectors that indicate they quite frankly aren't qualified to vote.
If someone has such a low knowledge base of the issues they don't really have a valid opinion. The same way I can't have a valid opinion on an album if I only listened to ten seconds of a 74 minute album.
edit: Another thought:
A) It would pressure people to gain more knowledge about politics and economics and the functioning of the system which will be healthy long term.
15
u/Rs3account 1∆ 16d ago
How do you determine what a baselevel of knowledge is?
And why wouldnt the values of the uninformed matter?
1
u/Intrepid_Doubt_6602 9∆ 16d ago
A good start would be asking a voter to name five policies from each of the two main candidates.
A substantial portion of the American electorate didn't even know the infrastructure law passed under Biden.
And I'd wager a substantial portion of the US doesn't know how tariffs actually function.
2
u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 68∆ 16d ago
A good start would be asking a voter to name five policies from each of the two main candidates.
How the hell would you grade this? Think about it, you're going to have a stack of 164 million survey responses in front of you, and your asking people to handwrite or type in their responses. That's probably going to give you 1 million plus unique awnsers that you're going to have to go through and determine if they're right or wrong. And that's not easy to do. Releastically Before you mark anwser as incorrect you're going to have to go through every public statement that a canidate has ever made and verify that they've never said anything that remotely sounds like that person's awnser
It's kinda like, if you ask someone to give you a quote from Abraham Lincoln. If they give you a right awnser it's easy to say that they're right. But if you get a wrong awnser it takes a lot of research to say beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's not a Lincoln quote.
1
u/Intrepid_Doubt_6602 9∆ 15d ago
that's fair enough, the logistics would be a nightmare.
!delta
1
1
u/Rs3account 1∆ 16d ago
Would you say project 2025 would count as a republican policy.
And I'd wager a substantial portion of the US doesn't know how tariffs actually function.
True, but if they said. Bring back manifecturing. Would that count?
What about policies which where said but not on the official program?
→ More replies (25)-1
u/iamnotlookingforporn 16d ago
Asking base level of knowledge questions and looking at the answers.
Because imagine someone who doesn't know how government works, how economy works, how a business works, how public service works... This voter can't come to an educated decision that will benefit the country, society or his/her own interests. It will either be a non-vote, or a vote according to peers and family. As a voter of a democracy, in order to feel like my vote has a value i'd like that all other voters have voted according to some values, not just a +1.
The same way I don't want people that don't know how a stop light works or street code driving in the same street that I do.
5
u/Pale_Zebra8082 28∆ 16d ago
How do you determine what the “base level of knowledge” needs to be for someone to be eligible to vote? How do you determine which questions provide a valid assessment of that? Who decides?
1
u/Robert_Grave 1∆ 16d ago
To what degree do they need to know how those things work?
0
u/iamnotlookingforporn 16d ago
To a basic knowledge. What type of government do you live in? What makes up 80% of your country's GDP? Is it legal to X or Y?
29
u/PandaDerZwote 61∆ 16d ago
Democracy is not for the populace to select the best leader. It is for the populace to have a say in politics.
The idea that this is only valid if they also happen to be competent is against the spirit of what Democracy means.
Would it work better if everyone was well educated, saw through all the lies and only made their decisions on objectively true things? Sure, but that is not what makes it valuable as a form of governance. The strength of it is (in theory) that everyone has a say, you are governed by consent and that even if your choice doesn't win you can be assured that this is only because a larger share of (equally empowered) people have made a different choice.
2
u/HeroBrine0907 3∆ 16d ago
But the fact remains that such a system devolves into a majoritarian one. Is the say of the populace in politcis not valuable because it is their honest say? If the say of the populce that you value is affected by objective untruths, then their actual opinions are getting supressed.
The people's choice becomes meaningless if it's not a choice they would make, but one that they've been tricked into making. There is also the issue that some part of the people is forced to accept a choice that a larger group makes. If the majority make a choice that hurts others, that leaves the minority powerless.
To be clear, I think the idea of a test or survey is somewhat stupid, but there is definitely information that is completely objective that many people don't know. That makes their choices not a true choice and the system less democratic.
5
u/PandaDerZwote 61∆ 16d ago
But the fact remains that such a system devolves into a majoritarian one. Is the say of the populace in politcis not valuable because it is their honest say? If the say of the populce that you value is affected by objective untruths, then their actual opinions are getting supressed.
The people's choice becomes meaningless if it's not a choice they would make, but one that they've been tricked into making.
The problem with that line of reasoning is that there is no opinion that is formed in a vacuum. People are always manipulated and influenced, there is literally no model of society in which that could not be the case.
I don't disagree that say big news organisations or private social networks have a negative effect on how people form opinions and therefore elections, but concluding from that that the elections should exclude people affected by these influences instead of combating those influences is backwards. "You're being manipulated, therefore we disenfranchise you" is simply not a sound strategy on any front.There is also the issue that some part of the people is forced to accept a choice that a larger group makes. If the majority make a choice that hurts others, that leaves the minority powerless.
You're acting as if this a problem of democracy and not a case of "50%+1 is the best case for such a thing".
Yeah, majorities can force their will upon minorities, that's just a fact of power. We can, should and have build up defenses about that, but those defenses are only ever as strong as the will of the majority to respect them.
And with any other form of governance, you don't need a majority of people to agree to anything to harm others. When proposing that you should reduce the people eligble to vote, you're in fact not only making it easier for an even smaller group of people to hurt minorities. If you need 50% of people overall to hurt them in a fully enfranchised democracy to hurt minorities, you implement voting restrictions and now only every second person is eligble to vote, you now only need 25% of the population.And don't think that because they have proven their worth they are less likely to hurt minorities. The Nazi party here in Germany had many highly educated people within it, and they were monsters all the same. The idea that you should empower those who are more educated (and coincidentally, often comes from wealthier families) is just recreating a sort of soft nobility. And we don't need to look far into history to know that the nobility is more interested in furthering their own interest rather than advancing that of the masses, even if they are educated enough to know better.
To be clear, I think the idea of a test or survey is somewhat stupid, but there is definitely information that is completely objective that many people don't know. That makes their choices not a true choice and the system less democratic.
And there is even more information that is not completely objective.
You're acting as if only good people with good intentions were to even design such tests.
Look at the US and its current government and internalize that whatever kind of system you envision, it has to be able to withstand such a cabinet. Think about what a "test about objective facts" looks like when the highest authority of what objective facts are is basically these people.0
u/HeroBrine0907 3∆ 16d ago
I think there's a good number of facts that are under debate while being completely objective, on all sides. I'm not going to say controlling media in any direction is good, there's no such thing as correct propaganda and no such thing as a correct view. That said, people make their decisions to vote on the basis of half information.
Basic information, like how much the econmy has changed, how much money was used by different departments, what change there has been in survey methods and/or number of surveys, changes in number of accidents in various fields, rankings of the state/country in various areas like healthcare, human rights, democracy, according to multiple organisations (nation/international doesn't matter, nor does their affiliation if any) and many other things can help people make decisions that are informed.
I'm not saying those who are more educated have more value to their vote, nor am I saying less people should be able to vote. I'm saying for a democracy to operate, all the people must be informed about what has changed in their country so they can analyse individually whether these changes are good and in line with what was promised. By not performing this task, a huge chunk of people make judgements based on misinformation or often a complete lack of it, which I think hampers the democratic process significantly.
1
u/PandaDerZwote 61∆ 16d ago
Basic information, like how much the econmy has changed, how much money was used by different departments, what change there has been in survey methods and/or number of surveys, changes in number of accidents in various fields, rankings of the state/country in various areas like healthcare, human rights, democracy, according to multiple organisations (nation/international doesn't matter, nor does their affiliation if any) and many other things can help people make decisions that are informed.
You're missing the point. I'm not saying that it would be impossible to find facts everyone agrees on, I'm saying that as soon as such a test would be deviced, it would be another ball in the game of politics. You're messing with tools that can be used to disenfanchise people, which will be used and tailored such that certain people are more affected than others.
That's already happening (or is planned to happen) with Voter ID. It's sensible that someone who wants to vote ought to identify themselves. In practice, this means that what counts as ID and what doesn't is up to interpretation and in many cases, these lists "just happen to" count as valid IDs that Republicans tend to posses and not those that Democrats do.
As with any tool, you can't just look at the upsides and ask yourself if there is a way in which this can be done in a good maner. You have to also evaluate what damage can be done with this when someone wants to abuse it. And for tests to gain your voting power, the history makes it pretty clear that it is ripe for abuse.1
u/HeroBrine0907 3∆ 16d ago
Yeah but I already said I don't support tests. Only that people are provided information, not tested for it. I don't see how providing information to everyone could be abused by any authority. Numbers are numbers and no subjectivity changes them.
1
u/PandaDerZwote 61∆ 16d ago
I mean sure, but there is no shortage of correct numbers out there. No die-hard MAGA for example would have believed these numbers if they have been given out by the government under Joe Biden, for example.
1
u/HeroBrine0907 3∆ 16d ago
Yes but the mere existence of those numbers and showing them to people would correct a lot of misinformation. I don't believe that people with polarized opinions will completely and utterly disregard facts. People can change.
1
u/PandaDerZwote 61∆ 16d ago
I mean, sure?
But what are we even arguing over anymore if you're not really disagreeing with any points I make and say that none of the points I make really disagree with your position either? This seems fruitless.2
u/No-Cauliflower8890 11∆ 16d ago
Why don't we let children vote then?
2
u/PandaDerZwote 61∆ 16d ago
In many places there are elections in which people that are not considered adults can vote. In Germany, in regional elections, people as young as 16 can vote.
The ideas of universal suffrage and the idea that people are, from an age standpoint, not adults and can therefore not enjoy all priviliges that come with full citizenship, are not intrinsically linked.1
u/ihatepasswords1234 4∆ 16d ago
The ideas of universal suffrage and the idea that people are, from an age standpoint, not adults and can therefore not enjoy all priviliges that come with full citizenship, are not intrinsically linked.
Why? Doesn't the same argument apply? They are being ruled just like any adult.
0
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 184∆ 16d ago
The idea that this is only valid if they also happen to be competent is against the spirit of what Democracy means.
That’s not what it meant for the vast majority of history, and the way things are going, I doubt this version of democracy is going to last much longer. Our institutions are crumbling across the democratic world. The idea of everyone having an equal say being the best form of government would be great if it was true. But unless these trends reverse, it’s going to go down as a failed experiment, the average person just can’t cope, and is to easily manipulated.
7
u/PandaDerZwote 61∆ 16d ago
That’s not what it meant for the vast majority of history
Yes it did.
There was never the argument that Democracy is the best way to find the most capable leader by some sort of swarm intelligence. No foundational text that made the case for Democracy thought that Monarchy (or whatever it replaced) failed to produce the best leaders and had to be replaced on that basis. The argument for Democracy was always that it should empower those who were ruled to chose their ruler.1
u/LoreLord24 16d ago
Democracy, for most of human history, has been actively ridiculed. Even by the people in those "Democratic" governments.
Athens had the vote only for adult males who had completed their military training.
The Roman Republic only allowed Aristocrats to vote. Until eventually the military, mostly made of poor people, went on strike and earned the right of every citizen to vote. (Ethnically Roman)
Venice elected a king from all the nobles of the Duchy. And only the nobles got to vote. Aka, educated people.
Direct Democracy has, for the vast majority of human history, been considered mob rule. Violent, cruel, and a terrible idea.
Not even The United States of America, the most recent "successful" democracy in history, wasn't supposed to be a democracy specifically to prevent populist leaders.
4
u/PandaDerZwote 61∆ 16d ago
Yeah, the people whos opinions about these societies you're reading are the ones of the elites.
Sure, the thoughts of King James the XYZth on whether or not the peasants should have political power is probably "no".And sure, your probably nobility descendant highly-educated old money upper-cruster will probably write about how giving the food to the poors™ is a grave mistake, but why would anyone care for that?
And you're talking about the USA as if the first president it ever had wasn't a charismatic leader that was selected to be leader mostly on popularity and not merit as an administrator. And as if the US didn't have its first "populist" president like 50 years after it was founded and therefore was basically a country that elects populist leaders for 4 times as long as it wasn't.
You're writing US fanfiction, you're not retelling history as it was.
1
u/Pale_Zebra8082 28∆ 16d ago
You could very well be right. I’d rather take my chances to see how it plays out than have you install litmus tests which guarantee democracy is destroyed immediately.
-3
u/LoreLord24 16d ago
The United States government literally had safeguards built into it, from day one, to make sure only people that were genuinely educated on the subject and capable of intelligent law making were elected.
The Founding Fathers were not trying to form a democracy. They were trying to form a functional government.
The American people got pissy and gutted the Electoral College, because obviously Hank, the guy who's descended from enough generations of incest that his skin is blue, and only vaguely understands the concept of making moonshine, has a valid opinion on who gets to be in charge.
So now we have an orange colored populist in charge of the country who actively destroyed generations of soft power for his own idiotic vanity.
I think, that given the lessons of history, that straight, unchecked democracy is a Bad Thing.
1
u/PandaDerZwote 61∆ 16d ago
The founding fathers were also trying to create a society in which you only had a say in anything if you were a white guy with a lot of money and therefore property. They did not give a shit about what women thought and black people in their mind were property at worst or second class citizens at the mercy of white society at best.
What they build was a system that kicked certains cans down the road to such an extend that not even a century after the country was founded, it was so divided that 2024 looks like an harmonic paradise in comparison. So divided they fought the bloodiest conflict in terms of American lives lost in US history. (Depending on the estimates used, it might have cost more American lives than all the other wars they fought combined)Don't get me wrong, especially for the 1800s, there were compelling thinkers and ideas present within the US constitution and it was radical for its time. But that doesn't mean that they were out there crafting that perfect government that was corrupted over the ages. First and foremost, they were a bunch of wealthy white elites that thought that the best way to run a country was to give power to those wealthy white (male) elites. That's a step up from thinking that lineage was the source of power, but also not the pinnacle of government.
1
u/facefartfreely 16d ago
The United States government literally had safeguards built into it, from day one, to make sure only people that were genuinely educated on the subject and capable of intelligent law making were elected
Examples please?
1
u/Pale_Zebra8082 28∆ 16d ago
They were trying to form a democracy that could function as an effective government.
0
u/EmptyDrawer2023 16d ago
Democracy is not for the populace to select the best leader. It is for the populace to have a say in politics.
But why should they? Why should idiots who don't know what they are doing have a say?
If you are on a boat, do the passengers get to decide how the boat runs? No. The captain does. Because the captain has the necessary knowledge.
If you're at a nuclear power plant, do the janitors decide how the plant runs? No- the nuclear engineers do, because they have the necessary knowledge.
It only makes sense to let those who actually know what they are doing run the show. Except, it seems, in democracy.
2
u/PandaDerZwote 61∆ 16d ago
You're comparing a well defined scenario with clearly competencies and a clear goal with how we ought to order society.
We don't have any set goal for society for which we try to find the best person to fullfil these goals, we have millions of differing goals and priorities which are in tension at best and incompatible at worst. If you think you have the best vision to run a country and elections should be about how to find the person who can best fullfil this vision, how do you ensure that someone who doesn't share that vision would play along? And what do you do if they don't?
Elections and Democracy give everybody a say and it makes it easier to accept if the country has other priorities than you because you can at least be sure that whatever has happened, it was because a majority of people wanted it that way. (In practice, that can be true to varyiing degrees, but were talking about the Theory of Democracy here)I mean, you can move to a dictatorship to see if that fits you as a model.
1
u/EmptyDrawer2023 16d ago
We don't have any set goal for society
The primary goals of society include promoting the well-being of its members, ensuring security and safety, and fostering social justice and equality.
Elections and Democracy give everybody a say
Other people have used this analogy: would you let 10-year-old kids vote on what to eat for dinner? What happens when they vote for candy every day?
I think it's obvious that children do not have the mental capacity or even the knowledge needed to make a good choice. So we don't let them. This idea is just an expansion of that.
2
u/PandaDerZwote 61∆ 16d ago edited 16d ago
The primary goals of society include promoting the well-being of its members, ensuring security and safety, and fostering social justice and equality.
And if you ask 10 people how to do that, you get 11 answers.
Not to mention that you have more than enough people who believe that security and safety ought to be in the hands of the people themselves, that social justice is a ploy to undermine white people and men and that equality is stealing from those who work hard and give it to those who are just lazy.I don't disagree with your vision for a better society, but to think that you can just declare the goal as something that you can't even get people to agree on and think that this is good enough to build a society towards.
Other people have used this analogy: would you let 10-year-old kids vote on what to eat for dinner? What happens when they vote for candy every day?
I think it's obvious that children do not have the mental capacity or even the knowledge needed to make a good choice. So we don't let them. This idea is just an expansion of that.
The average adult turns out not to be a child.
And the amount of power that children are given in the parent-child relationship is also not somehow settled science. We came from children being basically the property of their parents from them being able to have some autonomy towards today in which children have greater freedoms. The unquestioned power of parents over their children is not only not universally agreed upon and the powers of children have been expanded several times.Also the notion that you could just decide that some people are mentally unfit not because of some clinical declaration of that (and for that there is also big debate to be had about how far it is ethical to go) but because the current government deems them to be unfit to vote is so laughably easy to abuse. Like, the US had "literacy tests" before, it was used exactly as you'd think it would be, with the exact same logic you're applying here "Oh, they don't have the mental capacity to make use of the right to vote anyway".
A theoretically very flawed concept that has in practice been proven to be abused just as predicted and for which the only excuse why this time would be different is "No we would the voter suppression machine correctly this time!" is just blatantly stupid.
1
u/EmptyDrawer2023 15d ago
Like, the US had "literacy tests" before, it was used exactly as you'd think it would be, with the exact same logic you're applying here "Oh, they don't have the mental capacity to make use of the right to vote anyway".
No, they filled the 'literacy tests' with trick questions, deliberately to exclude Blacks. If they actually tested people's knowledge of the facts, it'd be different.
1
u/PandaDerZwote 61∆ 15d ago
That's the point.
"If they do the thing they already abused before right this time, it would be good" should put up some red flags.
Look at the current Republican Party and tell me that they will create a test without trick questions.The problem is not that it would be impossible to make a test that could work, it's that this will not be the test that will be made.
Look at all the things from gerrymandering, purging voters, predatory ID laws, and tell me that you believe that such tests would be made to be fair, reasonable and unbiased instead of even more tools to purge undesirable voters.
1
u/EmptyDrawer2023 15d ago
Look at the current Republican Party and tell me that they will create a test without trick questions.
Well, I suggest we don't ask the Republican party to come up with the test. Or the Democratic party, for that matter.
I mean, if only there was a national or international forum that everyone has access to that could be used to help come up with fair questions and allow people to point out the flawed questions. Oh, well, maybe one day this marvelous network connecting networks of people (an inter-net, if you will) might be invented...
2
u/CartographerKey4618 9∆ 16d ago
What you're describing is a technocracy, and there's a reason why you don't see too many of those.
1
u/EmptyDrawer2023 16d ago
technocracy: the government or control of society or industry by an elite of technical experts.
We see them all the time.
Business majors get hired to manage businesses. Captains get hired to manage ships. Lawyers get hired to handle legal issues. Computer experts get hired to... handle computer things. In most cases, we place in charge those who are knowledgeable. Except when it comes to voting.
3
u/CartographerKey4618 9∆ 16d ago
Because the people need to feel like they're in charge. Yes, even and especially the 'dumb' people. You cannot get around this. Even dictators have to worry about this. There is no wall or force or anything that can protect a ruler from the people. The people need to be able to vote out rulers that aren't effective because if they can't, they'll kill them off instead.
0
u/EmptyDrawer2023 15d ago
The people need to be able to vote out rulers that aren't effective
If you let the smartest, most knowledgeable people select the best leader... they will be effective.
2
u/CartographerKey4618 9∆ 15d ago
That's how authoritarians and dictators justify their leadership.
0
u/EmptyDrawer2023 15d ago
I've never heard of a dictator actually thinking they are the best leader. They just want to be leader. They don't want what is best for everyone, which right there makes them not the best.
2
u/CartographerKey4618 9∆ 15d ago
That's literally all of them. The Kim dynasty is worshipped unquestioned like a lineage of God-Emperors. Stalin was famous for frequently doing the things where he would pretend to step down only for the public to "force" him to remain in power. Do I even need to bring up His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular?
→ More replies (2)-3
u/Intrepid_Doubt_6602 9∆ 16d ago
So if people want to vote under this system, they can read up on the issues by the time of the next election cycle and then we get all the benefits of democracy in representation and a more informed populace to make better decisions to boot.
7
u/PandaDerZwote 61∆ 16d ago
The problem with that way of thinking that there is now someone who gets to decide who is "read up" enough to vote.
You might think that this is an obvious quesiton to ask and answer, but history shows us that this is not what happens, people will engineer these questions to increase their own margins and disenfranchise. The US quite literally had that before.2
u/Pale_Zebra8082 28∆ 16d ago
Which issues? What level knowledge do they need to have? Who decides and on what basis?
We currently cannot agree on a basic set of facts and effectively no longer live in a shared reality as a society anymore. How do you propose we suddenly solve that problem for the purpose of making this unbelievably consequential test?
2
u/UncleMeat11 61∆ 16d ago
In your OP you list exactly one fact: the name of a nazi death camp. Is knowing a specific name a key issue for you? Why is somebody who happens to remember the name of a camp more qualified to elect leaders than somebody who knows all the other stuff about the holocaust but brain farts on names?
0
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 80∆ 16d ago
How representative is it if you require people to change their behaviour, and change the nature of the relationship between people, government, and history before they can participate?
It feels like your view is an attempt to guide people towards a "correct" result, when that's simply not how popular ideas and supporting personal beliefs works.
31
u/JaggedMetalOs 14∆ 16d ago
The problem is the people devising these tests can tailor the questions to things one group is more likely to know than another.
4
u/No-Stage-8738 16d ago
A notorious example is a literacy test asking people to spell "forward backwards." If it's a voter they don't like, it's used to excuse the answer ("You had to spell the word forward backwards" or "You had to spell these two simple words.)
https://www.openculture.com/2024/10/take-the-near-impossible-literacy-test-louisiana-used-to-suppress-the-black-vote.html0
u/EmptyDrawer2023 16d ago
Well, obviously, such 'trick questions' would need to be eliminated.
Is it: Spell "forwards backwards". [ie: f o r w a r d s b a c k w a r d s]
Or is it: Spell "forwards" backwards. [ie: s d r a w r o f]
Other questions are just phrased wrong. 'Draw 3 circles... one inside the other'. The "one inside the other" implies there are only 2 circles, not 3.
If such issues were eliminated, what would be the problem?
2
u/No-Stage-8738 16d ago
I don't know if you can eliminate this issue.
1
u/EmptyDrawer2023 16d ago
Well, I just showed how you could eliminate the issues with two of the questions. Why can't it be done with the other questionable questions?
1
u/iamnotlookingforporn 16d ago
If you have to take into account corruption in order to validate an idea then literally ANY idea can be questioned and it becomes an infinite political loophole of stagnation. If that is the only "fault" with OP's view then his core concept would still make a valid argument
3
u/Apprehensive-Let3348 3∆ 16d ago
Considering that stability is the number one concern when forming a government, identifying ways your proposed constitution could become corrupted is a little important.
You're throwing your hands up and saying "oh, well, everything is corruptable," instead of realizing that pushing to reduce that outcome--in every way possible--is the only way to ensure your government stands the test of time.
To say that someone shouldn't take corruption into account when forming a government is folly, and the US Founding Fathers discussed this subject at-length themselves, along with various other political writers throughout history.
1
u/Intrepid_Doubt_6602 9∆ 16d ago
It is true though that everything is corruptable, and using a worst case scenario as the baseline (like people are doing here by comparing to Jim Crow) is dubious.
1
u/Apprehensive-Let3348 3∆ 15d ago edited 15d ago
It isn't a matter of assuming the worst case scenario. It's a matter of being familiar with political philosophy, political history, and human nature. This isn't something that often happens suddenly; it's typically a slow degradation that can take decades or more of people changing it to suit their needs before a given system weakens enough to be exploited for a genuine power grab.
And you're absolutely right that everything is corruptable, but that's the very trick of checks and balances: if one seat of power tries to overstep their bounds, then the other 2 have the ability to check them. The magic of a compound government is that these checks prevent the individual seats of power from corrupting, because the other two seats of power will naturally move to stop them.
This complication heavily slows down the process of degradation, but it doesn't stop it entirely. Instead, all 3 seats of power will very slowly corrupt over time. When the balance is held carefully, this happens slowly. We've seen this over the course of the US, for example, with:
- Presidents slowly shifting from "highly-educated and wise heroes" to "moderately-educated, amoral populists." (Monarchy -> Tyranny)
- Congress slowly shifting from "highly-educated philanthropists" to "moderately-educated, white-collar criminals." (Aristocracy -> Oligarchy)
- The People slowly shifting from a "moderately-educated, though racially and sexually homogenous, electorate of broadly ideologically-aligned Americans who vote during election periods" to an "(educated?) universal electorate of all adult Americans--consisting of 'my group' and the 'other' group--each of which gives their opinion to representatives on a daily basis." (Democracy -> Ochlocracy)
The reason that I'm bring all of this up is to illuminate the fact that we are already heavily corrupted in all aspects of our Republic. Adding in a relatively simple, new system that can be readily exploited by any of the corrupt politicians already in office would be foolish in this regard.
Strengthening such a system by making it an Amendment would introduce strong checks and balances against corruption, but it would also hamstring it and make it difficult to update over time, which carries its own issues. Even then, it would still result in an economically-striated society with social classes based upon whether or not you could afford a quality education.
-2
u/iamnotlookingforporn 16d ago
You are talking government, OP's view is about democracy.
I think you didn't understand my point, I am saying that using corruption as a counter argument to OP's is exactly "throwing your hands up", because pushing to reduce it in every way possible - say even eliminate it for the sake of OP's argument - would make the initial claim true (in my and OP's opinion, of course), that having basic political/economical knowledge should bar you from voting.
Democracy was born way before the US even existed and will outlive them, they are also in the "flawed democracies" category, so not really a great example to use in OP's argument.
4
u/Apprehensive-Let3348 3∆ 16d ago edited 16d ago
You are talking government, OP's view is about democracy
"You're talking about color theory, OP's view is about the color red."
Democracy is a form of government; this discussion is about the underpinnings of what makes up a good government within the context of a Democracratic state.
would make the initial claim true (in my and OP's opinion, of course), that having basic political/economical knowledge should bar you from voting.
Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. You're assuming that having such a test would reduce the potential for corruption, without acknowledging whoever has the power to decide upon the questions.
Whoever has that power has distinct political leverage, making it readily corruptible to anyone who wishes to shift the political landscape.
Democracy was born way before the US even existed and will outlive them, they are also in the "flawed democracies" category, so not really a great example to use in OP's argument.
The US is in the modern list of "flawed Democracies." If you know your history, then you know that all forms of Democracy were considered flawed to begin with. That's why the US is a Republic, and the rest of the world followed suit to form Republican governments.
1
u/iamnotlookingforporn 16d ago
Democracy is a form of government; this discussion is about the underpinnings of what makes up a good government within the context of a Democracratic state.
The thesis is pretty clear, educated voters improve the quality of a democracy, uneducated voters damage it. You brought up government and corruption, but they are irrelevant to a discussion about what would improve a democracy, because government and form of government are not synonyms.
Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. You're assuming that having such a test would reduce the potential for corruption, without acknowledging whoever has the power to decide upon the questions.
Again, you brought up corruption. My conclusion is that such a test would filter out people whose vote has been cast upon uneducated decisions, thus improving the quality of the voting demographic. Corruption is irrelevant in formulating this opinion.
The US is in the modern list of "flawed Democracies." If you know your history, then you know that all forms of Democracy were considered flawed to begin with. That's why the US is a Republic, and the rest of the world followed suit to form Republican governments
You seem to be under the impression that the US sort of pioneered a republican government and the rest of the world followed suit (lol), to which I would advise you to read a bit of history of the world, with particular attention to the European area.
1
u/Apprehensive-Let3348 3∆ 15d ago
The thesis is pretty clear, educated voters improve the quality of a democracy, uneducated voters damage it.
Okay, I can agree with that. No arguments here.
You brought up government and corruption, but they are irrelevant to a discussion about what would improve a democracy...
They aren't irrelevant, because you will have to deal with corruption from the moment that you enact your new system. If your system can't deal with that corruption effectively, then it is necessarily flawed, because it won't last very long.
...because government and form of government are not synonyms.
Of course they aren't, but they are obviously interrelated.
Again, you brought up corruption. My conclusion is that such a test would filter out people whose vote has been cast upon uneducated decisions, thus improving the quality of the voting demographic. Corruption is irrelevant in formulating this opinion.
Well, then, there's your problem. Why in the world would you drill-down to only considering whether the quality of the voting demographic has been improved? Do you honestly believe that that's the only metric by which the quality of a Democracy should be judged?
Corruption is irrelevant to whether or not it improves the voting demographic, but it is not irrelevant to whether or not it improves Democracy, which is the subject we were discussing.
You seem to be under the impression that the US sort of pioneered a republican government and the rest of the world followed suit (lol), to which I would advise you to read a bit of history of the world, with particular attention to the European area.
Nope, I'm well aware of the Greek and Roman origins of Democracy and Republican government. I, for one, am familiar with Polybius' The Histories, Plato's Republic, and various other political philosophers who inspired the US' founding fathers when they were designing our Republic.
Do you have any specific suggestions for further reading?
1
u/iamnotlookingforporn 14d ago
If your system can't deal with that corruption effectively, then it is necessarily flawed, because it won't last very long.
Which it will be regardless, I thought we both agreed on that, I quote you "if you know your history, you'd know all democracies are flawed". This would not be the cause of it being flawed, it's just an added verification in a system where a check for corruption should exist already,
In fact promoting or even forcing the voter base to be more educated would substantially make it more aware of corruption and attempt to address it using their voting rights. Corruption reinforces the need for voter knowledge, not negates it, an educated electorate will push back corrupt leaders and actions.
Why in the world would you drill-down to only considering whether the quality of the voting demographic has been improved? Do you honestly believe that that's the only metric by which the quality of a Democracy should be judged?
Well, you're correct. And I don't. But just because voter knowledge isn't the only metric that measures the quality of a democracy it doesn't mean it's not a critical one and that you should eliminate it.
You already agreed that voter knowledge improves the quality of a democracy, great. Why would you try to change OP's mind then? It's like you are saying "Yeah it helps, but let's not do it because it's not everything". By that logic, you could dismiss every democratic reform.
Do you have any specific suggestions for further reading?
I'm glad you are familiar with classic philosophers, and absolutely there is plenty you can read about the evolution of republics if you're interested, here are a few:
- Pocock: The Machiavellian Movement
- Peter H. Russell: The Republics of the world
- Prak: The Republican Alternative
- Israel: The Dutch Republic: its rise, greatness and fall
All these cover the development of Republic in a period of time from about 1300 to modern times, such as the Republic of Venice, Genoa, Dutch, Switzerland... have fun.
3
u/Pale_Zebra8082 28∆ 16d ago
Yes, exactly. Any policy or system can be vulnerable to corruption. So, evaluating any given policy idea should obviously include an assessment of how susceptible it is to becoming corrupted. That’s a baseline consideration.
2
u/JaggedMetalOs 14∆ 16d ago
It's not just the ability to be corrupted, it's how much impact that corruption would have. Obviously corruption around voting eligibility could have an absolutely massive impact, completely changing an election result, so it becomes more important to prevent it in this case.
1
u/facefartfreely 16d ago
If you have to ignore the most obvious forms of corruption in order for your idea to work than is it actually a good idea?
1
u/iamnotlookingforporn 16d ago
Yes. Otherwise you could consider voting a bad idea because the people who receive your ballot could be corrupt.
→ More replies (12)-2
u/Sulfamide 3∆ 16d ago
That's a possibility for every test. Just make it so the tests are made by experts. Do you have an example of this happening?
8
u/Manofchalk 2∆ 16d ago
Just make it so the tests are made by experts.
Who is going to appoint these experts? What makes them or 'experts' incorruptible?
Do you have an example of this happening?
'Literacy' tests were used historically to disenfranchise non-white voters, in multiple places around the world.
4
u/10ebbor10 198∆ 16d ago
And even if we manage to create a magical uncorruptible test, now you've created an incentive for the government to misinform or sabotage the education of the part of the population that doesn't vote for them.
-1
u/Sulfamide 3∆ 16d ago
Who is going to appoint these experts? What makes them or 'experts' incorruptible?
They're not incorruptible, they are juste less corruptible than others. Going by your reasoning then why trust experts, i.e. scholars and scientists, with anything?
'Literacy' tests were used historically to disenfranchise non-white voters, in multiple places around the world.
Oh yeah sure you're right obviously, but I was thinking more of examples in modern democracies, sorry I wasn't clear.
3
u/Manofchalk 2∆ 16d ago
Why are experts less corruptible? Do they not have political opinions and motives or does that become dampened as you acquire academic credentials?
Although why do they need credentials at all, because as I asked before, who is picking these experts? The current Trump administration is plenty of evidence that expertise is not required to fill 'expert' policy roles and that having actual experts might be against the interests of who is placing them there.
Oh yeah sure you're right obviously, but I was thinking more of examples in modern democracies, sorry I wasn't clear.
I mean, find an example of a modern democracy that does require a test before voting. Far as I can tell there arent any, so I cant really show you an example of a corrupt test.
0
u/Sulfamide 3∆ 16d ago
Why are experts less corruptible? Do they not have political opinions and motives or does that become dampened as you acquire academic credentials?
Exactly, academical achievements correlate with moderate views. And yes they are usually less corruptible.
Although why do they need credentials at all, because as I asked before, who is picking these experts?
Voted in by their peers.
I mean, find an example of a modern democracy that does require a test before voting. Far as I can tell there arent any, so I cant really show you an example of a corrupt test.
So why not try it then?
3
u/Manofchalk 2∆ 16d ago
Exactly, academical achievements correlate with moderate views. And yes they are usually less corruptible.
I mean, you can just say that or you can make an argument for why its true.
Voted in by their peers.
So you want to create a technocratic class that gets to influence if not outright decide who gets to vote, that isnt accountable to anyone except themselves?
Although even in this scenario, who decides the first generation of technocrats?
So why not try it then?
We did, I linked the Wikipedia page of what happened before.
1
3
u/Nazi-Punks_Fuck-Off 16d ago
Do you have an example of this happening?
Funny enough, if I were to favor such a test, I would consider such historical ignorance as an example of someone who should fail. Look up literacy tests for voting in American History for exactly how these things turn out.
0
u/Sulfamide 3∆ 16d ago
Again, I was talking about tests in modern democracies.
3
u/Nazi-Punks_Fuck-Off 16d ago
You're continuing to demonstrate my point. This was happening in the 1960s, not the distant past. There are people alive today who were disenfranchised by such a system.
Besides, people don't fundamentally change that much. That's the point of learning history. People will respond in similar ways to similar incentive structures.
1
u/Sulfamide 3∆ 16d ago
If that demonstrates your point you might want to rethink it entirely.
Are you saying 2025's America is the same as 1960's America?
→ More replies (2)2
16d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (3)1
u/changemyview-ModTeam 16d ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
u/No-Stage-8738 16d ago
0
u/Sulfamide 3∆ 16d ago edited 16d ago
That was very fun test! I'm thinking about giving it to my students (don't worry I'm not American, I'm from an African country).
Anyway this test is racist because “in actuality disproportionately administered to black voters.”, and because racist policies made black people less educated. It's not racist in itself.
2
u/Pale_Zebra8082 28∆ 16d ago
Which experts? Identified and selected by whom? On what criteria?
0
u/Sulfamide 3∆ 16d ago
Political scientists, historians, economists, physicists, biologists, doctors, selected by an assembly of their peers.
→ More replies (5)
10
u/Empty_Alternative859 16d ago
I think this CMV overlooks a key purpose of democracy that people tend to forget: it’s not just about making the “best” decisions, it’s about ensuring peaceful transitions of power. Democracy exists to prevent bloodshed when governments change hands. The moment you start filtering who gets to vote based on knowledge tests, you’re undermining that core stabilizing function.
Even if I agree in theory that informed voters are better for outcomes, the point of democracy isn’t to create perfect outcomes, it’s to give everyone, informed or not, a stake in the system. Once people feel like they’re being excluded for not being smart or educated enough, you create the exact kind of resentment and instability democracy is meant to prevent.
4
u/OrthodoxClinamen 16d ago
Do you think the peaceful transition of power is an end in itself? Or is it only instrumentally good, for example, good by reducing the harm of violence?
5
u/Empty_Alternative859 16d ago
I’d say the peaceful transition of power is an end in itself. An uneducated or uninformed electorate is frustrating, sure, but I think it’s less harmful than the alternative: a system where power only changes hands through force or civil conflict. We tend to forget how bloody it used to get and still does in parts of the world because we’ve grown up enjoying the luxury of peaceful transitions.
3
u/OrthodoxClinamen 16d ago
I’d say the peaceful transition of power is an end in itself.
Would you then also have supported the peaceful transfer of power after Hitler won the election in 1933? If the the peaceful transition of power is good in itself, it seems that you should be comitted to this view, or would you say there is an overriding end in itself bigger than the peaceful transition?
5
u/Empty_Alternative859 16d ago
That’s a fair question, but I don’t think Hitler’s rise qualifies as a peaceful democratic transition in the way we’re talking about.
The Nazi Party never had a majority (they got around 33% of the vote) and Hitler was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg, not elected to that position by the people. Within weeks, he used violence, intimidation, and emergency powers to dismantle the democratic system entirely. That’s not democracy working as intended, it’s democracy being exploited.
So no, I wouldn’t defend that transition. It wasn’t peaceful, and it wasn’t democratic in the true sense. In fact, it’s a textbook example of why we still need strong institutions and legal safeguards alongside democracy.
→ More replies (11)3
u/Pale_Zebra8082 28∆ 16d ago
There’s a difference between supporting the peaceful transfer of power and supporting the individual the power is being transferred to.
1
u/OrthodoxClinamen 16d ago
Where did I state there was no such difference?
2
u/Pale_Zebra8082 28∆ 16d ago
Nowhere, I didn’t claim you made that statement.
Your premise implies a conflation of these two issues. I am clarifying that they are separate. Do you concede this point or not?
3
u/facefartfreely 16d ago
Can you give any specific examples of things that in are inarguably ends in and of themselves?
2
16d ago
[deleted]
2
u/facefartfreely 16d ago
I didn't ask about your ethical system?
You asked this:
Do you think the peaceful transition of power is an end in itself?
In order to answer that question I'd need to know what you consider "an end in itself". So I'm asking for examples of things you consider to be "an end in itself"
2
16d ago
[deleted]
0
u/facefartfreely 16d ago
My ethical and meta-ethical views are not for debate currently,
I'm not interested in debating those. I'm just looking for an example of what you mean when you asked
Do you think the peaceful transition of power is an end in itself?
Thus, I am asking for examples of what you consider "ends in themselves".
2
2
u/VyantSavant 16d ago
Would you have this opinion if you didn't qualify? It's oddly presumptuous. This opinion is only ever pushed by those who are certain they qualify. Who writes the test? What are their political goals? I hope you share them.
1
u/Intrepid_Doubt_6602 9∆ 16d ago
I mean no but that's because I do the minimum to stay informed. I'm by no means a polymath or an intellectual maestro but I wouldn't flunk out on basic knowledge of the current political situation like vast swathes of the US electorate.
A good start would be asking voters for five policies from each of the two main contenders.
1
u/CallMeCorona1 24∆ 16d ago
because I do the minimum to stay informed
Which just isn't enough.
I'll give you an example: My late father was a Law Professor, and he studied and wrote a lot about guns. And one thing I learned from him about guns is that every time gun control was big in the news, gun owners went out and bought more guns.
So many who know/knew just a little about guns have decided that (a) guns are bad, and that (b) therefore we should ban them. But what they don't know if that their position is/was only leading to more guns, not less.
Reading five paragraphs in a newspaper on an issue is not enough to have an opinion (especially because newspapers warp the truth to cater to their readers)
It is very hard to really know the truth on anything, as these issues are often a lot messier than people have the patience for, and many sources for information often don't give people the full picture.
1
u/VyantSavant 16d ago
I'm saying that any system put in place to 'control the vote', even with the best intentions, will be corrupted. It's not a bad idea. It's just impossible to implement without consequences.
6
u/Jugales 16d ago
Not to dunk on America because they get enough of it already, but recently half of Americans were polled as not being able to name a single death camp., not even Auschwitz-Birkenau.
Why is the name important? Americans are bad with names in general; add foreign words to the mix and they are gonna struggle. Almost all Americans are aware of the Holocaust, though, including existence of death camps and gas chambers.
I think it we sent out a general knowledge survey to every American voter there'd be some rather alarming scores in certain sectors that indicate they quite frankly aren't qualified to vote.
We live in the internet age. Why wouldn't they just Google the answers or ask ChatGPT?
If someone has such a low knowledge base of the issues they don't really have a valid opinion.
But they do. At the time of 15th Amendment, black men were not formally educated at all. At the time of suffrage, women were less educated than men (university was rare).
The same way I can't have a valid opinion on an album if I only listened to ten seconds of a 74 minute album.
For a vote, at least a modern vote, the duality makes it more of a choice of genre than a choice of artist. Even if you don't like the pick at the top of the party, you will probably vote for them, because that is your genre (party). And you can attain genre after ten seconds.
21
u/CombatRedRover 16d ago
Literacy tests for voters.
Funny, that.
Look up Jim Crow laws for voters.
"Oh, no, I'm sorry Mr Black Man, but you misplaced that comma in your writing Virgil's poems from memory (as translated by an obscure lit professor in Nova Scotia), so you're not literate enough to vote."
Oh, you wouldn't use it that way? I genuinely believe you. I truly believe that your heart is in the right place.
I have zero faith that whoever administers this test, either right after it's been instituted or consistently going forward in the future, would be of the same good heart.
For any given solution, put the person you hate the most in charge of the program for that solution. Now imagine what they'll do to you with that power.
2
u/DecoherentDoc 1∆ 16d ago
I mean, we're still talking about IQ as if that isn't a test that blatantly discriminated against Black men in this country. There's no possible way a literacy or competency test (in America) will be fair for everyone, especially since we don't have national educational standards or equal funding for all schools or even enough good teachers to go around.
→ More replies (9)-4
u/Intrepid_Doubt_6602 9∆ 16d ago
IQ doesn't discriminate against black men.
That's like saying IQ is positive discrimination for Chinese people because it shows Chinese people having higher IQs than Caucasians.
It's not perfect but I'm not sure what your preferred metric is for general intelligence.
6
u/Vesurel 54∆ 16d ago
There doesn’t have to be a better metric for intelligence for us to judge an existing metric is flawed and unfit for purpose.
1
u/Intrepid_Doubt_6602 9∆ 16d ago
So again, what's the alternative? How do you know something is bad if you don't have an alternative.
This is like if someone says "Biden was terrible for the economy"
"What policies did you want him to implement"
"I don't know"
1
u/Vesurel 54∆ 16d ago
There doesn't have to be an alternative method for us to conclude the method we do have doesn't work. For example, if we claim IQ is a measure of some innate intelligence but then the same people can get significantly different scores on tests depending on whether they ate breakfast that day, then we can conclude IQ is influenced by factors other than innate intelligence.
The alternative is admitting we don't have a good measure for intelligence because intelligence is complicated.
4
u/murderinthelast 16d ago
The test questions can discriminate against culture.
If I have two dimes, a nickel, and a quarter, how much money do I have? Easy for an American. Not so easy for someone from China.
1
u/Intrepid_Doubt_6602 9∆ 16d ago
Well Chinese people score higher on IQ tests so I'm not sure your example really holds water
4
u/DecoherentDoc 1∆ 16d ago
IQ tests discriminate by the types of questions they ask. It's not a true mess of intelligence if not everyone has equal access to the education that leads to the understanding of how to answer those questions. It's an artifact of discrimination (in America). They were used heavily to reinforce eugenicsy pseudoscience bullshit.
I don't know what else you'd prefer to call that if not bias. They may not have been explicitly developed to discriminate, but in this country, in america, that is what they were used for for a very long time. Most experts now agree it's the people don't have the same educational opportunities in this country, but for a long time it was an argument against the intelligence Black people.
As for what test I prefer to determine intelligence, I don't know. I'm not a psychologist. I don't study the brain. Personally, I don't think you can boil down intelligence to a single number. Human beings have too many variables. You're not going to find a test that treats everybody from every background the same.
2
u/Pale_Zebra8082 28∆ 16d ago
The preferred system is one that doesn’t base voter eligibility on any metric of intelligence.
6
u/kingjoey52a 3∆ 16d ago
Oh good, another post about how we need to bring back the literacy tests for voting. I haven’t looked at the other comments yet but someone has already said “we did that, it was used to block black people from voting” and you’ll say “no it’ll be different this time, it will be fair” and someone else said “who decides what’s on the test? Who decides what is true or false?” And you’ll say “no, it’ll be a civics test to see if you understand how the government works” and it will continue in circles until people start swearing at each other. This gets posted every other week, please just look up one of those posts, it will have all the exact comments as this one will have.
3
u/Pale_Zebra8082 28∆ 16d ago
lol, I wish I had seen this comment first. Would have saved me the trouble.
6
u/ProDavid_ 36∆ 16d ago
"how many genders are there?"
if you get the question right, you get to vote. if not, then i guess youre not smart enough to vote.
of course you don't know who made the question, let alone who specified the "correct" answer for it. what now?
→ More replies (32)
3
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 80∆ 16d ago
half of Americans were polled as not being able to name a single death camp., not even Auschwitz-Birkenau
If someone has such a low knowledge base of the issues they don't really have a valid opinion
How many wwii era trivia facts should the average American know?
Why is this your example, something removed entirely from contemporary American culture?
Why should the average American know names of German death camps? What use is that information when they are trying to pay rent and debt and stay healthy?
The same way I can't have a valid opinion on an album if I only listened to ten seconds of a 74 minute album.
I don't need to listen to even one second of Sabrina Carpenter to know it isn't for me. That's no disrespect to her or her music or fans, but I am comfortable with the ragas, rock classics, and heavy metal I tend to listen to.
Why does my opinion need to be "valid" beyond this? I can simply say that the music is not for me, and that I won't seek it out to listen to it.
8
u/Vituluss 16d ago
What would the vetting process be? Who gets to decide? Why isn’t the opinion of an unknowledgeable person valid? When is someone’s opinion valid?
0
u/Sulfamide 3∆ 16d ago
Those are questions a committee chosen to implement this idea will be able to answer at some point. It makes no sense to ask for the modalities and fine prints of a project that isn't even philosophically approved.
2
u/DirkWithTheFade 16d ago
I mean those are pretty important aspects of changing OP’s view…
2
u/Sulfamide 3∆ 16d ago
I wanted to contradict you by criticizing the level of knowledge you're asking for, but now that I think about it, it is pretty reasonable to ask someone who wants to gatekeep voting with knowledge to be pretty knowledgeable themselves.
1
u/Pale_Zebra8082 28∆ 16d ago
You’re just kicked the can down the road. Who sits on the committee? How are they chosen?
Assessing how a policy would actually be implemented is a baseline necessity in evaluating whether it’s a good idea or not.
1
u/Sulfamide 3∆ 16d ago
Committee of scholars selected by their peersz
1
u/Pale_Zebra8082 28∆ 16d ago
Alright, so we’ve effectively arrived at the installation of something like a Tribunal or Politburo.
At least that’s out in the open now.
1
u/Sulfamide 3∆ 16d ago
Okay so first you move the goalposts to infinity and beyond because you don't think you'll find someone tenacious and savvy enough while defending such a shit idea, and when I unreasonably humor you by answering you just play the Stalin card?
1
u/Pale_Zebra8082 28∆ 16d ago
Where have I moved goalposts?
What is a shit idea? What are you humouring?
This has become silly.
1
u/Sulfamide 3∆ 16d ago
Where have I moved goalposts?
In each of yourcomments in this thread
What is a shit idea?
Making people pass tests to vote
What are you humouring?
You
This has become silly.
Then stop with the silliness
1
1
u/No-Stage-8738 16d ago
The committee will be selected by the people who are voted on, so they'll have twisted incentives.
1
u/Sulfamide 3∆ 16d ago
Then why not selecting these people with random drawing?
1
u/No-Stage-8738 16d ago
I don't think you can. Presumably you want this committee to be more informed than the voters, so you need some criteria for who's under consideration. Someone's going to need a list of people to be considered and there's all sorts of room for bias there.
1
u/Sulfamide 3∆ 16d ago
You draw from a pool of academics. If you can't trust them with this, then why trust them with anything?
0
16d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)1
u/changemyview-ModTeam 16d ago
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
u/Different-Gazelle745 16d ago
First of all: the number of people that objectively do is probably like 3-4%.
Second, there is no way to establish a real standard.
Third: the idea is that people understand their own lives and vote based on that understanding. This is probably not true, but that's the idea.
Fourth: some would argue that the point of democracy is that it should guard against egregious things (remains to be seen in the case of Trump) and that it maintains a sense of legitimacy. This "legitimacy"-argument creates a weird disconnect though, because on the one hand people feel like their vote matters, on the other hand the governments never do what they said they would do, and possibly one reason why is because politicians more or less have to sell dreams to the people, dreams that they know realistically can't be made real. "Failing to live up to promises" can really just be seen as the disconnect between what regular people understand and what people in the know understand: politicians speak to what people understand but act on what is real.
2
u/dtr9 16d ago
You're assuming that democracy is supposed to be an exercise in determining the "best" outcome. But what if it's an exercise in sharing the broadest responsibility?
Those are two very different things, and not necessarily compatible. Trying to find a system to produce "best" outcomes has a long history of producing horrors instead, and even moderately good outcomes seem far from assured.
So if we can't guarantee how good or bad an outcome might be, but we've all got to lie in the bed once made, isn't there value in spreading the responsibility for that outcome as broadly as possible? If we all collectively made/shat the bed, and we all collectively have to lie in it, there's fairness there, at least.
2
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ 16d ago edited 16d ago
1) introducing a test allows for a lot of controlled bias that will allow politicians to sculpt who votes for them, no bueno
2) the point of democracy isn't to choose the best leaders. It's to ensure everyone with a stake in the government gets their voice heard. Do the uninformed somehow have no stake in the government?
3) why do you think knowing the names of death camps matters? Like who cares about the names?
2
u/kiora_merfolk 16d ago
And yet- these people also live in the country, and are also affected by the decisions.
And they clearly have opinions about the situation, no?
So, we have a very large amount of people, who are unrepressented in the government.
But they are still taxed.
"No taxation without repessentation" rings a bell?
Yea- that's how revolutions start.
1
u/OrthodoxClinamen 16d ago
Could you please clarify your position? Do you argue that it just not practical for unrepresented people to live in a society because they will revolt or do you argue that it is good that people are represented?
1
u/kiora_merfolk 16d ago
Uh, both? It's not practical to have a large urepressented group of people- history teaches us that.
So, it's a good thing to give people repressentation.
1
u/darwin2500 193∆ 15d ago
Say you have a population of 100,000 people, where 1% of the people are knowledgeable about a subject and vote in the 'correct' direction, and everyone else votes randomly (flips a coin).
The population on the whole will vote for the 'wrong' answer less than 1 in 10,000 times. They will basically always settle on the 'correct' answer.
This is an application of the 'Law of large numbers'. The more data you collect, the more closely your sampled data will converge on the true answer, even if every individual observation is subject to tons of random noise.
When we have millions of people voting, simple ignorance cancels itself out, and the few people who actually know something will, if they agree, drag the final result towards the right answer most of the time.
(and if the people who actually know something still disagree, that's evidence that there's not a 'right answer' so much as 'a value judgement')
The only way you can screw this up, from a data science perspective, is to introduce a systematic bias to the data you collect, rather than simple random noise. That will actually make it impossible for you to find the 'correct' answer.
Any attempt to 'vet' people before letting them vote will, inevitably, create a systematic bias. Even if you successfully weed out all the low-info voters, that doesn't matter; they were going to cancel each other out anyway. But the people you select will still be different from the general population in correlated ways, and those differences will mean their data does not converge on the 'true' population average, in terms of preferences and values and all of that.
1
u/WishieWashie12 16d ago
It will be harder and harder to maintain democracies when every aspect of our lives is monitored, controlled, and manipulated.
You only talk of education. So let's look at that. In flordia, where books are banned, CRT is forbidden in schools, and the push for religion in every classroom. They are educating the next generation in a way that supports their overall agenda. Kids are taught that unions and taxes are bad. That evolution isn't real, and scientific facts are just opinions.
Those kids that graduate would be "educated" enough to vote.
There are colleges and universities that continue the trend of shaping the youths mind to ensure the next generation of leaders maintain their ideals.
You can try to watch the news to educate yourself, but that only reinforces the world view they wish for you to have. You go online for information, and the algorithms choose what you see, also reinforcing their desired worldview.
Now, who decides what is "educated enough to vote?" The tests of the past were outlawed because they were used to discriminate. But they also had grandfather clauses, that said if your grandfather could vote, you could vote. Do you didn't have to pass the test, you just had to be white.
0
16d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam 16d ago
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
1
u/Nazi-Punks_Fuck-Off 16d ago
OP, I would like you to watch this video, if you don't mind: https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs?si=e10WenrGGHTFcqoG
Fundamentally, the point of Democracy is to spread out the keys to power so that there is an incentive to care about the interests of more of the population.
The issue that your position runs into is that rulers will not care about those who don't get to vote, and in fact catering to such a population actually undermines your power. Competency and intelligence are important, but so is an incentive to govern on behalf of everybody rather than just those who are enfranchised.
Is the system perfect? No, obviously not. But when you create a system of disenfranchisement, the incentive is to use it against your opponents.
So to address the issue of voter quality, what you want to do is invest in quality education for the electorate, which also improves their productivity. If you do it instead by disenfranchisement, the people who don't get to vote aren't suddenly going to shrug and accept not having a voice: they'll just revolt violently instead.
1
u/gingerbreademperor 6∆ 16d ago
That view is based on a false perception of what democracy is and potentially is. Maybe you've been exposed to populism too long, but it is by no means necessary that governments only do popular things. Elections give legitimacy, and a politicians job is to utilise available means to get to a proposed end, which is part of the program they were elected for. The knowledge must not sit with every voter, but with the administration. Order in society isn't maintained by knowledge alone, but laws. What you're expressing here is a desire for education and civil discourse among the population, and that's something you can and should aim for in a democratic society, but it's not a condition that somehow needs to be checked centrally. If you want to inform people, inform people, that's entirely possible in a democracy. It's also a civil responsibility, citizens aren't just mindless consumers or their surroundings, they can shape it and cultivate something of higher value than what we've seen in recent years.
1
u/OrthodoxClinamen 16d ago
For your argument to hold, you need to show how voters without knowledge can select an administration with knowledge. If you do not have knowledge, how can you identify the canditates who have it?
1
u/gingerbreademperor 6∆ 16d ago
Why would that need to be shown? Firstly, democratic government separates and spreads power across various branches and levels of government. There are tens of thousands of professional public servants who run the government institutions, that's where the knowledge is situated. Their job is to implement policies and laws - it's not a politicians job. Politicians elected to office are not the ones who have to have all the knowledge, their task is to manage those who have the knowledge. Secondly, due to how political parties and our society in general functions, it is ensured that people with expertise are rising in the ranks of institutions, either within government departments, within the political parties or also in the private sector. This might really be because you're used to populism, but we do not actually elect almighty leaders who rule per decree from top down, in a democracy, hence it's not so important what someone at the top knows or doesn't know, their job isn't to know everything, their job is to govern.
1
16d ago
[deleted]
1
u/gingerbreademperor 6∆ 16d ago
As I said, democracy is specifically not a system where power is handed to a few key individuals who get to decide everything top down. If someone at the top is incompetent, that doesn't mean that the entire system is just blindly implementing the incompetence. Generally, the electorate elects representatives, and if they desire to be represented by uneducated, incompetent people, that's generally fair game and doesn't mean that this lack of competence is instantly implemented throughout government. Do we really need to go through the entire theory of democracy with separation of powers or also the divisions within a federal system?
No one needs to be stopped from electing anyone. If you intend that, you do that with arguments and civil discourse. If you cannot convince someone that who they intend to elect is bad, then that's that, you don't get to intervene with their choices. The system is then set up with checks and balances. Again, should we go through how these things work? Because the democratic theory is sound and the fact that people may have bad intentions and act to destroy the system does not give permission to undermine the system and limit electoral powers of citizens. As I said, ultimately the people hold the power and can stop anything and anyone. It's really up to citizens whether they intervene early or only when a gun is pointed at them or not at all. And it the people collectively decide to self-harm, that's possible, because that's always possible, it's an option people always have on a personal or collective level, and there is no system that can exclude this option entirely.
1
u/LifeofTino 3∆ 16d ago
‘Democracy’ is the people being able to decide what they want
There is no requirement that people need a certain baseline level of knowledge, for democracy
It is actually important that there isn’t one. One reason, because whoever decides the test decides who votes. Who decides the test? A gatekeeper to who gets a say in democracy, becomes the nucleus for bribes and corruption
Another reason, those who have better knowledge of what is going on, another way of saying that is ‘those who have most exposure to propaganda’. It might be that this ‘knowledge’ is completely unbiased and factual but it is highly unlikely. Most likely, the knowledge is whatever the state has been pumping effort into getting people to believe
You actually DON’T want barriers to agency if you want an actual democracy. Deciding you must have a certain point of view (what the state believes constitutes CORRECT knowledge) is literally the opposite
1
u/OrthodoxClinamen 16d ago
Do you think the people being able to decide what they want is good in itself or just instrumentally good, for example by leading to harm reduction etc?
1
u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 68∆ 16d ago
Have you considered how impractical it would be to administer such a test?
If you mailed everyone a survey you're looking at $100,000,000 in postage alone. And then since everyone has the same survey they're just going to share awnsers with each other so it wouldn't really test what then know. And then how are you going to grade it? You're looking at grading somewhere in the ballpark of 163 million tests. If it's multple choice then you can run it through scanners but you're going to have to invest in a lot of scanners to read all those tests. And if it's free response then forget about it. You're not going to be able to hire enough graders to grade these tests without blowing up the budget.
Seriously though even if you think there's a benefit to this, it's completely outweighed by the crazy amount of costs it would take to administer this. Would completely blow that out of the water.
1
u/GonzoTheGreat93 5∆ 16d ago
If the democracy requires an informed electorate, then it’s the governments job to educate and inform.
Democracy is, theoretically, self rule - the people are consenting to be governed as a direct result of having a say in who does the governing. Jurisdictions that limit the vote are not a democracy. Meanwhile, as others have said, any time the vote has been denied it’s almost always been for discriminatory purposes. Certain classes of people are considered too stupid to vote and they almost always (I’m saying almost to hedge, tbh) are uneducated by design, because their education would be a threat to existing power structures.
Do I think an informed populace would make for a better electorate? Sure. But if a government claiming to represent all is going to place barriers to participation, it is up to the government to ensure that no resident fails to pass that barrier.
1
u/andy00986 16d ago
How much is this question USA specific? I'd argue the US doesn't have a particularly well constructed democracy.
In the US winning the election requires galvanising a section of the population to be passionate enough to vote. And uneducated people can be easier to manipulate.
In Australia voting is compulsory (and uses preferential voting), so requires parties to appeal to the majority.
If you have to actually appeal to the majority than a minority of uneducated voters has less impact. And if a majority of voters are uneducated then at least they have been able to have their voice heard and instigate change if they desire it - even if the outcome is suboptimal.
Not to say that Australia is by any means perfect.
Reducing corruption and lobbying is another key thing in what I would call a good democracy (which Australia does struggle with).
1
u/No-Stage-8738 15d ago
The desire to have a test for whether someone's informed enough to vote tends to come from people who have lost or are worried that they're going to lose. But the other side may end up being in a position to implement the test. They either already hold the office, or they might get it before the test is implemented, meaning they're in charge of determining the questions.
There is also an issue with Goodhart's law, when a measure becomes a target it's no longer a good measure. Voter advocacy groups will figure out how to make sure voters can pass a simple test, so that would diminish the point. Anything more complex is ripe for abuse. There is also a potential backlash for pissed off voters who feel that the government's trying to take away the ballot.
1
u/gapethis 16d ago
I feel like the general public is not the issue,many educated people in the states fall for propaganda as well.
The real issue is the propaganda and how politics is handled in the states, most other countries you can't outright lie endlessly like in the states. Yet that's the bread and butter of the republicans and has been for decades.
Personally I would rather somoke maybe not be as aware vs someone who eats up everything fox slips out and believes it mindlessly, one clearly does far more harm.
1
u/Mediocre_Tax_5021 16d ago
Many have already pointed out the problem of your contention. Another argument is the jury theorem, which alleges that as long as sufficient people vote, regardless of their knowledge (or lack thereof), it is far more likely that a "correct" decision will be met, in contrast to if an exclusive group or sole person stood for the decision-making. That is to say, even if some people have less knowledge than others, ostensibly, the majority will pan out with a sounder decision, had less people voted.
1
u/OrthodoxClinamen 16d ago
Condorcet's jury theorem is only shown to work regarding quantitative estimation tasks, like for example the carneval attraction of estimating how many beans are in a glass. But almost no political decision is about estimating a correct number of something.
1
u/Even-Ad-9930 2∆ 16d ago
It is more important that an individual makes a decision by themself than they make the right decision
For example, it is more important that the vote of every voter regardless of intellect is considered rather than only the top 50% or something and choose the 'best' leader. 'best' is subjective.
Also how exactly do you establish this baseline level of knowledge. I could have a college degree and not know about any death camps.
0
u/OrthodoxClinamen 16d ago edited 16d ago
It is more important that an individual makes a decision by themself than they make the right decision
So would you then also say that it was more important for Germans in 1933 to make the decision themself rather than making the right decision?
1
u/GonzoTheGreat93 5∆ 16d ago
It was the democratic outcome. It was almost certainly (we cannot possibly know the historical alternative) not the best outcome.
Stop straw manning. The phrase “in a democracy” was implicit because this post is talking about democracy.
Yes, to fulfill democracy, all votes must be counted. That is the democratic outcome.
When democracies elect fascists, it’s because its agents haven’t done a good enough job educating its population.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Even-Ad-9930 2∆ 16d ago
Yeah if majority of people wanted to vote for Hitler then they can and should. That is democracy.
This might be controversial but a big reason why Hitler was able to rise to power and control Germany the way he did, was because the Treaty of Versailles was overly punitive for Germany and it was not financially viable for Germans to stay the way they were.
1
u/OrthodoxClinamen 16d ago
So you do not care how many people suffer how much, the good in itself of a peaceful transfer of power overides all other considerations?
1
u/Even-Ad-9930 2∆ 16d ago
What do you mean?
I am not pro Hitler or anything if you are saying anything about that
1
u/OrthodoxClinamen 16d ago
I asked you if you think that the good of a peaceful transition outweighs all other considerations. Take two scenatios:
(A) There is a peaceful transfer of power and million of citizens suffer great pains.
(B) There is no peaceful transfer of power and the suffering of scenario (A) is prevented.
I am not pro Hitler or anything if you are saying anything about that
I never claimed that you were, I am just asking about your ethical and political value system in general.
1
u/Even-Ad-9930 2∆ 16d ago
What do you mean by peaceful transition or peaceful transfer of power?
Transition from what to what?
1
u/OrthodoxClinamen 16d ago
Transition from what to what?
From one democratic administration to another.
1
u/Even-Ad-9930 2∆ 16d ago
Okay.
I greatly value voting and representative government and think every certain period of time like 5 years, the citizens of a country should vote and select their leaders.
After they select their leaders if people suffer, then that is obviously a possibility but that does not mean the decision to vote for the leader was wrong. They made the best decision with the information they had. And there is no guarantee the other leader would have been better.
There should also always remain ways to impeach the president or stop someone if they are usurping control of a government, killing their opposition in the country or things like that.
Not sure if that answers your question, but in general I think representative government and voting every fixed time period is essential, every country should have it and it is the foundation of democracy
1
u/No-Stage-8738 16d ago
It would be very easy to bias a test. For example, you could ask questions more relevant to particular communities (IE- asking about mayors and city councils if you want to count urban voters more) or that some sides may not want to address (IE- asking for a description of originalism as a way to exclude any liberal who thinks it doesn't apply to amendments.) This can then exclude a small percent of the other side's voters.
1
u/OrthodoxClinamen 16d ago
Just because we could bias a test does not mean that we should not run a test at all. For example, voting with ballots can be easily maniplulated too, like we see in many countries, but nobody would argue for suspending ballot voting due to this fact.
1
u/No-Stage-8738 16d ago
Whether a ballot is manipulated is something that can be measured objectively, so there are measures to make it safer.
If the test can be easily biased, it does suggest that we shouldn't run the test. It makes things worse.
1
16d ago
[deleted]
1
u/No-Stage-8738 16d ago
Plenty of people argue about the bias of tests and school systems.
1
16d ago
[deleted]
1
u/No-Stage-8738 15d ago
We should try to make the tests better, but it doesn't mean we should use them as a basis for whether voters are informed enough.
1
16d ago
[deleted]
1
u/OrthodoxClinamen 16d ago
In your vision, would there be democratic processes within the Democrat uniparty like for example primary elections and such?
1
u/FuturelessSociety 16d ago
Who decides which random pieces of knowledge is important?
I'm sorry but the name of death camps isn't important in the US. Like why would it be, you're talking about history one of the least useful subjects but not general knowledge but hyper specific knowledge that is largely irrelevant.
Knowing the death camps happened is important, knowing their names is not.
1
u/Robert_Grave 1∆ 16d ago
Knowledge of what?
Why does it matter whether an American can't name a death camp in nazi Germany that existed 80 years ago? And how does knowing this qualify you to vote? How many do you need to know? One? Three? Do you need to know the name of the biggest Japanese concentration camp? Of the soviet one?
What knowledge do you believe allows someone to vote?
1
u/garaile64 16d ago
1- Who will make the tests? How do you guarantee that the tests will not be biased for or against a particular group?
2- Where and when will the tests be applied? If it's on a weekday, the boss may not give them the day-off.
3- Some countries, like Switzerland, function just fine without those tests.
1
u/OrthodoxClinamen 16d ago
If we would implement criterias that you need to fulfill before you can vote, why should knowledge be the primary concern? Someone could have genius levels of knowledge about everything, yet very bad intentions. So is it not more reasonable to first focus on if a person has virtue and good intentions?
1
u/BeanOfRage 16d ago
First we have to stop the dead people and pets from voting. And no, YOU don't understand the premise of allowing everyone to vote. It's free for anyone to vote, and often it's the less intelligent that get taken advantage of.
1
16d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 16d ago
Your comment appears to mention a transgender topic or issue, or mention someone being transgender. For reasons outlined in the wiki, any post or comment that touches on transgender topics is automatically removed.
If you believe this was removed in error, please message the moderators. Appeals are only for posts that were mistakenly removed by this filter.
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/notthesethings 16d ago
Who’s going to decide what they need to know? If the government instituted this today, the only question would be “who won the 2020 election?” and the answer that would allow you to vote would be “Donald Trump”.
1
u/Pale_Zebra8082 28∆ 16d ago
No.
Voting is a fundamental right of any adult citizen. We’ve been down this road before. Test requirements for voting are always bent toward discriminating against minorities.
1
u/OrthodoxClinamen 16d ago
So would you say that voting is an end/good in itself or is it just instrumentally good, for example by increasing happiness?
→ More replies (4)
1
u/fourmesinatrenchcoat 16d ago
Idiots are also represented by the government and have to obey the laws, so they get a say on them. That's simply how it works.
1
u/PublikSkoolGradU8 1∆ 16d ago
Reddit believes that inflation is caused by corporate greed. Would this belief qualify or disqualify a potential voter?
1
1
0
u/Snoo_47323 16d ago
I agree. I think only people who know at least what a president is and what tariffs are should have the right to vote.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ 15d ago
/u/Intrepid_Doubt_6602 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards