Yes, computers will definitely be involved.
But, they will be in the 2004 election anyway, so what’s the difference?
The way you handle computer errors in 2004 should be the way you handle them in the proposed system.
Actually, I didn’t think beyond the two-party system, but I like your formula.
Why do people have to “ace” the test?
It’s possible to say, for example
0 or 1 questions correct: vote value = 0.1
2 to 3 questions correct: vote value = 0.4
4 to 5 questions correct: vote value = 0.7
6 to 10 questions correct: vote value = 1
The mapping between number of questions the voter gets correctly, and the value of his vote, can be anything we want.
I don’t get this. Based on your formula above, woudn’t 96 of the questions be about the “main” parties, with 4 about the fringe parties?
On a humorous sidenote: I was talking about this issue with a friend, and she said "What do you mean you want to ask people questions about candidates’ positions? Many will fail simple questions like ‘Who is the Vice President of the United States?’ ".
If any of you have seen Jay Leno’s Jay Walking, you will know what she’s talking about.
Polerius, I like your idea as a comparatively simple way of enforcing the idea that the better informed voters count for more than the less informed. I wish people wouldn’t knee-jerk react about things like this - first, he’s talking purely theoretically, and second, one-vote/one-person was not handed down from on high as the only way to ever run a government and maintain personal freedom. We’re playing with ideas here, people, not advocating the overthrow of the United States!
Read over what Polerius proposed again. Nowhere did he suggest that a) anyone should be disenfranchised, b) that any viewpoint or ethos should be tested for, or c) that any great intellectual achievement was necessary for full marks. He recommends a two-part test, the lesser one for basic reasoning skills, and the greater one testing for a simple recognition of the candidates’ stated positions! Gee, there’s a revolutionary thought - seeing if the voter has a clue what he or she is voting for, and weighting accordingly!
However, I still would want to consider the Heinleinian Starship Troopers system, wherein a person must demonstrate willingness to accept responsibility (in the form of public service) in order to qualify for authority (having a vote). That’s the huge weakness of Democracy as a system of government; any system in which authority and responsibility are not directly correlated is, IMO, doomed to failure. I’m not sure Heinlein’s mechanism is the right one, but it’s at least a recognition of that flaw and an attempt to address it.
Just because there’s no intent to disenfranchise doesn’t mean that it won’t disenfranchise.
I think it’s reasonable to assume that on average, people with a bachelor’s degree will do better on the test than people without. You run into a problem immediately–people in certain parts of the country are more likely to have a bachelor’s degree, as are people of certain ethnicities.
If the test contains only factual questions, what does a bachelor’s degree help?
Even if the test also contains some basic logic questions, then in parts of the country where societal norms prevent people from getting bachelors degrees, people still have some innate intelligence that does not come from getting a bachelors. And these people will do well.
I’m not sure what types of questions you think will be on the test. For simple logic, a sample question might be
“When it rains, the snails come out. Yesterday, the snails came out in Houston.
This implies:
a) It rained in Houston yesterday
b) It didn’t rain in Houston yesterday
c) We can’t be sure if it rained or not in Houston yesterday.”
Not sure if this is too difficult for the average person, but I assume not. If it is, we can put even simpler questions on the test, so you don’t need formal education to be able to do well, just common sense.
Wouldn’t it be simpler to administer such a test to 18 year-olds and immigrants seeking citizenship? Once passed, it gives them the franchise for life. If failed, they can try again a year later. Of course, such a test will end up being biased toward those whose families could afford higher education, i.e. not the poor.
Though the whole exercise strikes me as an excessively complicated solution to a largely nonexistant problem.
So what you’re saying is that there’s no single issue which is so important that voters should let it determine their vote? I can’t agree with that. A couple of examples:[ul][li]You are convinced that your head of state has lied to the people, even more blatantly than politicians usually do. You want to vote him out of office, because you hope this will make future heads of state somewhat more fearful of telling lies of a similar magnitude. You feel that trying to keep politicians somewhat honest is important for the future of your democracy, and that this trumps all other issues.[/li][li]A large group of politicians in your country are considering applying for membership in the European Union. You have researched the positions of the various parties on this issue, and see it as more important than all other issues combined. EU membership or not will have tremendous impact on most areas of politics and economics for the foreseeable future.[/ul][/li]Oh, and about your logics test: How often is it that logic helps in seeing through misdirection from politicians? In my experience (which may be different from yours, as my politicians aren’t yours) their lies are more in the category of weasel-wording (“Those aren’t soldiers as such, just aid workes who happen to wear green and carry guns”), vague promises (“We’re in favour of better schools, better health care, and better care for the elderly”), even vaguer slogans (“Protect the welfare state!”) and flat out absurdity (“You shouldn’t use the word “union” uncritically when speaking of EU.”).
That could work.
That leaves the factual part of the test, which should be taken during every election.
I’m not sure you need higher education to get simple stuff like that.
But, if what you say is true, high school education can be modified to teach students some basic logic rules.
It’s precisely because of some peoples’ inability to know the answer to questions like the one I asked that politicians get away with bogus “arguments” all the time.
It would be a benefit to the country if in addition to math/science/art/gym there was a class in analytic reasoning.
It’s very interesting that you talk about a “nonexistant problem”.
What about the fact that health care costs are skyrocketing, and yet the campaigns are all about whether Kerry is a “rich boring elite who is out of touch with the people”, and whether Bush skipped some days in the National Guard, instead of discussing plans by both sides to address the issues.
What about the fact that a large number of people live below the poverty line, and yet people are talking about how Teresa Heinz is too this, while Laura Bush is too that.
If we put as much energy into discussing the health care and other plans of the two candidates, as we do in discussing whether some documents about Bush’s National Guard service are forgeries or not, some of these problems might start to be alleviated.
What I’m saying is the following: you can be a one-issue voter (e.g. abortion) to a certain degree, but you can’t *totally * ignore the other things your candidate of choice is going to implement.
You can’t just simply say: What does candidate A say about abortion and what does candidate B say? And without considering anything else on their platform, just vote for them. The rest of their platform might be disastrous for the country.
For you to know that their platform might be disastrous or not, you have to know what their platform is, beyong whether they support abortion or not.
Well, it is not a cure-all, but it sure helps much more than the absence of logic.
All I can say is, if there is a test that can determine who will buy crap like the above and who will not buy it, let’s use it. For now, I assume intelligence is a predictor of who will buy those “arguments”. You seem intelligent enough to know that those are “weasel-wordings” and “vague promises”, so why can’t we try to identify who among the population is also able to identify them as such?
I’ve had thoughts myself along the lines of this scheme. It seems that candidates rely very heavily on showing well on TV and glibness and the average Joe is not going to take the time to really research a politician’s platform.
As everyone has pointed out, testing voters on a candidate’s stand is probably too subjective as well as being overly subject to spin control by the parties. So, why not modify polerius’s scheme in two ways:
A) Make the questions general, to test reasoning skills and maybe some aspect of statistics. Scale the votes based on the results of the quiz and give feedback to the voter. ie "Your vote was scaled down to .5 because you agreed that “50% of Americans being below average intelligence is cause for alarm.”
B) Make any candidate take a tougher version of the same test live on national TV and announce the results immediately. This might help reduce cheating.
Neither test would require an advanced degree in physics to pass, something closer to high school level.
Obviously, voters will still vote in their own self-interest but at least they would be capable of finding out the facts for themselves and have some understanding of the long-term consequences of their decisions. The other aspect of this would be that some candidates would be clipped out if they simply weren’t bright enough to do the job. I believe this would avoid charges of turning the country over to an intellectual elite while still helping to make voting decisions more informed.
Well, yes, I agree to a certain extent. If I was - say - anti-abortion, I still wouldn’t want to vote for an anti-abortion party which wanted to solve the problem of unwanted pregnancies by sending all fertile men to the coal mines on Svalbard. I should make sure that the party I voted for was mostly sane on other issues. But this knowledge could be based on very general info, and probably wouldn’t be enough to pass your test.
To take another example: I’m a leftist - pretty far left even by Norwegian standards. Before the last local election, I asked people from the Socialist Left Party and the Red Voters’ Alliance what the main differences were between those two parties in my city and county. They agreed about what the difference was (though they phrased it differently ), and I made my choice based on that. For voting purposes, I don’t need to know the stance of the Progressive Party on public transportation, or the stance of the Christian Democrats on kindergardens. Barring a brain-and-heart-transplant, there’s no chance in hell that I’ll vote for them, ever.
Because just because I’m cynical doesn’t mean that my vote should count for more than someone who’s more trusting. And, just because I’m cynical doesn’t mean I’m right about the motives of politicians.
You want a more educated electorate. I agree with you in that goal, but I’d much rather get there by educating people, than by reducing the influence of those who aren’t educated “enough”, based on a standard set by people I don’t trust. (Those tests should be vetted by politicians, right?) A far better way to that goal is more emphasis on criitical thinking and discussion about current issues in school.
Well, wait a sec, I thought you weren’t proposing your plan be implemented in the United States (although I have been using the U.S. as a model to find holes). Other democratic nations don’t have quiz-votes, but aren’t going on at length about the military service/wealth/wives of their candidates. None of these were factors in the recent Canadian election, for example, and our voting system is quiz-free. We have our problems, too (health care costs, poverty, etc) but it’s increasingly unclear how your proposal is going to to address any of them.
The nonexistant problem I refer to is the notion that voters are by-and-large uninformed. I’d say they’re exactly as informed as they choose to be, including the “single-issue” voters. Trying to force voters to conform to a standard (beyond a good standardized education) will do more to undermine democracy than improve it.
I was watching Signs the other day and there was a scene where they voted what to do next. Everyone voted: adults and children. And then it hit me: why don’t we let children vote in general elections?
Right now, the voting age in the US is 18. Why don’t we let 12-year olds and 15-year olds to vote? Could it be because they’re not mature or wise enough?
Well, what is the proof that someone becomes mature and wise at 18?
Instead of having a rigid age criterion to judge if somoeone is mature and wise enough to vote, why not have a test to determine that?
If you say that everyone should be able to vote, regardless of how mature they are, because it is the right of every citizen to vote, why don’t we let 12-year olds vote? Hell, why not 5-year olds?
Seriously, this may sound funny, but think about all the reasons we don’t let children vote. Why do we think those reasons disappear at age 18?
), and I made my choice based on that. For voting purposes, I don’t need to know the stance of the Progressive Party on public transportation, or the stance of the Christian Democrats on kindergardens. Barring a brain-and-heart-transplant, there’s no chance in hell that I’ll vote for them, ever.