Ok, I understand the room for corruption in a literacy test, but can someone explain to me what would be wrong with a test that made sure people where competent enough to know what the heck they were voting for and aren't just taking the side of the very last smooth talker that got them riled? I know there's tons of room for talk here, but I'm having a hard time being against a sheeple filter.

Not enough people vote as it is. Forcing any sort of test to vote will just shrink the voter numbers even lower. Instead of forcing people to pass tests, maybe we the people should force the politicians to be more than smooth talkers. And not allow party differences to hinder any work either side attempts and hurt the nation as a whole.

It's not just the "room for corruption." It's the history of corruption, and specifically bigotry. Someone needs to determine WHAT exactly IS qualification for voting. I mean, even putting "how many marbles in this jar" tests behind us, the questions could still have a huge range of specificity. It could be anything from "how many branches of government are there?" which would be ok I suppose... to "Who sits on the 9th district court of appeals?" which I could not answer without the internet, and I'm working on a PhD.

To the broader point, it's counter-democratic. Democracy has its costs and benefits, just like capitalism. The two act as conjugates to each other. Capitalism is already the meritocratic aspect of our system. Those that have demonstrated their ability already wield disproportionate power (as they should). The democracy is designed to reign in that power to ensure that no group, through its sophistication, can exploit the (often uneducated) masses. Without maintaining equal access to the polls, government would slowly reflect only the interests of those still able to vote, particularly since under your model those would most likely be the wealthiest individuals as well.

The unwashed masses in the US are equal part moderate/conservative, it just sounds good to the anti-democrat folks who are sure that it's stupid(read black or immigrant) voters that keep them out of power. Such a test will likely have no effect on elections unless it is used to unequally disenfranchise.

I suggest, instead, that we do the opposite, institute a fine(say $100) for NOT voting. Both parties clam to be the representatives of the "silent majority", let's see who's bluffing.>> ^Enzoblue:
Ok, I understand the room for corruption in a literacy test, but can someone explain to me what would be wrong with a test that made sure people where competent enough to know what the heck they were voting for and aren't just taking the side of the very last smooth talker that got them riled? I know there's tons of room for talk here, but I'm having a hard time being against a sheeple filter.

::shudder::

So you want to force all those Sarah Palin types (you know, the ones that can't even -name- a magazine or newspaper, or find a polling booth without a personal guide) to cast votes on issues they can't even name, much less spell?

God save us. If you don't know what the issues are, you have no imposing your ignorance on the rest of the country...stay home on election day. Please!

I actually -would- support a literacy (or civics) test for voting, except that the people who make and administer the test will change, and sooner or later we'd end up with bigots and ideologists in charge. (If you doubt that, remember how our current Supreme Court tossed out nearly 100 years of precedent to give the speech of CEOs a virtually infinite megaphone.) Putting such control in those hands is even worse than being ruled by the opinions of morons.

>> ^dgandhi:
The unwashed masses in the US are equal part moderate/conservative, it just sounds good to the anti-democrat folks who are sure that it's stupid(read black or immigrant) voters that keep them out of power. Such a test will likely have no effect on elections unless it is used to unequally disenfranchise.
I suggest, instead, that we do the opposite, institute a fine(say $100) for NOT voting. Both parties clam to be the representatives of the "silent majority", let's see who's bluffing.>> ^Enzoblue:
Ok, I understand the room for corruption in a literacy test, but can someone explain to me what would be wrong with a test that made sure people where competent enough to know what the heck they were voting for and aren't just taking the side of the very last smooth talker that got them riled? I know there's tons of room for talk here, but I'm having a hard time being against a sheeple filter.

>> ^Enzoblue:
Ok, I understand the room for corruption in a literacy test, but can someone explain to me what would be wrong with a test that made sure people where competent enough to know what the heck they were voting for and aren't just taking the side of the very last smooth talker that got them riled? I know there's tons of room for talk here, but I'm having a hard time being against a sheeple filter.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Wisdom-of-the-Crowds

The so-called "wisdom of the crowds" is not well studied, if at all. At best, it could be valid for limited domains where the average person -has- some knowledge of the question, at worst, it's complete fabrication.

Or shall we bring up flat Earth beliefs, stock market bubbles, and mob lynchings of the innocent, to show how reliable it is?

It may deserve more research, but it's a damned flimsy argument for rule-by-morons.

>> ^Stormsinger:
::shudder::
So you want to force all those Sarah Palin types (you know, the ones that can't even -name- a magazine or newspaper, or find a polling booth without a personal guide) to cast votes on issues they can't even name, much less spell?
God save us. If you don't know what the issues are, you have no imposing your ignorance on the rest of the country...stay home on election day. Please!
I actually -would- support a literacy (or civics) test for voting, except that the people who make and administer the test will change, and sooner or later we'd end up with bigots and ideologists in charge. (If you doubt that, remember how our current Supreme Court tossed out nearly 100 years of precedent to give the speech of CEOs a virtually infinite megaphone.) Putting such control in those hands is even worse than being ruled by the opinions of morons.
You would also get all those disaffected folks who are reasonable, but don't really think anything will ever change. Forcing everyone to vote would probably not have a polarizing effect, it would more likely have a normalizing effect. If you want to work, or drive, send you kids to public school, get social security, or food stamps, then you should have to fulfill your social obligation, and take half a day every two years and vote. I fail to see how that is so scary.