In most countries the right to vote is granted once one has reached a certain age. My idea is that one should gain his right to vote by taking a test. Instead of using faulty logic (age => competence), why not test a citizen’s aptitudes through a rational method of evaluation (competence => competence). You need a license to drive a car. I don’t see why it wouldn’t be the same for voting.
I mean, students could take classes of general political theory during high-school and sustain a test when and if they feel prepared. Not age, but knowledge. You get the idea. It’s probably not new, but I’ve never seen it discussed around here before.
Another thing. The test. There could be different levels of difficulty. Freddy takes gpt test Level 1 at sixteen, he’s apt to vote. His vote counts as one. He studies more, gets better, acquires more knowledge. He takes gpt test Level 2, he’s the man. He knows more. He’s better at this, therefore his vote should weigh more than his friend’s, who’s an idiot. Presto. His vote counts as two. He grows up, goes to college, he’s got a firm grip on things. Takes gpt test Level 3. His vote counts as 3.
My take is that this would work just fine. Does it violate any basic rights ? Not that I can think of ? Is it restrictive, elitist ? No. It is funded by the governement, open to anyone as long as they are willing to take the test. Benefits ? More competent voters, able to tell the difference, less likely to vote on subjective or biased terms, acquainted with the political jargon. A system where competence is considered a valuable asset and rewarded accordingly. As a result, a tighter, more effcient democracy.
I’ve argued this exact case on several occasions, though I’m not sure that I’ve done so here. It makes a lot of sense - the only problems arise when determining who it is that constructs the test (and subsequently the lessons offered as help in passing the test). While certain things are objective, such as which policy comes from which manifesto, many things in politics are subjective. So employing such a test runs the risk of making voting the preserve of the elite, or at least of only those people who agree with the elite who determine political competence (i.e. those who write the test).
And yes, granting suffrage on the basis of age is nothing short of ridiculous. I was more politically informed at 16 than most British people are in their entire lifetimes. Of course, voting is only one of many political activities one can use to try to sway governments. If all else fails, just blow something up.
Except they’ve made that illegal now. And technically I’ve just broken a law by suggesting that you do it (2006 Terrorism Act, section 1).
Except that tests and sufferage have a rather terrible history (see: Jim Crow laws).
So, it is one of those great ideas that seems like its implimentation makes it not such a good idea. Not that current democracies are terribly democratic.
Frankly, I think the other extreme works slightly better – force everybody to vote and to hell with it! It isn’t as good as, you know, a government run by competent people, but at least it is honest.
Sounds good, but it caters to the middle class and richer. People who cannot afford to take classes, or people who go to underfunded schools will be at an unfair disadvantage for voting.
Essentially, whether we like it or not, it will generate a wealth based hierarchy of voting.